Talk:New York Yankees/Archive 3

Thurman Munson

Excluding the retired numbers section there is no mention of Munson, the Yankees' first Captain since Gehrig. Anyone else think he should be mentioned somewhere? AriGold 13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this above. Yankees76 21:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yankees logo

So your contention is that the official Yankees' website and MLB are wrong and they don't know when their logo was first used and we should trust www.baseball-almanac.com which is a site that is provided information from anon sources like wikipedia? "What would become the most recognizable insignia in sports the interlocking 'NY' made its first appearance on the uniforms of the New York Highlanders in 1909." [1] AriGold 13:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Yankees first used their version of the NY logo in 1909, but they were not the first team to use an Interlocking NY. In 1901 the Yankees were the Baltimore Orioles, however that year the New York Giants used the Interlocking NY logo as their official team logo (though not on the uniform) - 2 years before the New York Highlanders existed. The article doesn't specify the first appearace of the Yankees NY logo, it states that " An interlocking "NY" (based on an element of the original Tiffany design of the New York Police Department's Medal of Honor, although the concept of the interlocking NY was first used by". Your statement is therefore wrong. The concept was not first used by the Higlanders. The Giants first used the interlocking NY. Please read more carefully - I'm reverting it back. Yankees76 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And if you're worried about verifiability, please refer to the Baseball Hall of Fame website - have a look at the 1908 NY Giants uniforms - you'll notice the Interlocking NY on the left sleave of both the home and road jersey. [2] The NY logo on the Highlanders uniform appeared a year later. Thanks. Yankees76 13:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And just while we're at it, the logo identified as being from the Highlander days is a modern print logo. I'm aware that Sportslogos.net has mis-identified it as such, but we should not perpetuate the error. I have corrected the caption and moved the logo down to the "21st Century" section. --Chancemichaels 21:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Non-neutral POV

I cannot believe this did not get noticed this pro-Yankee paragraph added by someone with the IP address 207.219.117.254:

Some argue that the mere consideration of five years without a championship as some sort of "drought" it testament to the level of expectation the Yankees have created. No other franchise would consider a five year stretch as any kind of drought. Indeed, the Yankees are a franchise in a league of their own, and this level of dominance and expectation started with the deal that brought George "Babe" Ruth from the Boston Red Sox and can support the contention that the Curse of the Bambino will remain as long as the Yankees position as the class of the MLB is a reality. Any team can win a championship (no one would consider the Arizona Diamondbacks or Florida Marlins, recent World Series champions, to be franchises threatening to topple the Yankees legacy over the last 85 years), so the Red Sox finally winning one doesn't put them back to the position of dominance over the MLB they held through the WWI years.

If 207.219.117.254 does not consider the last five years a drought, he or she may as well remove the entire section. Plus, I am sure many Yankee fans will concede that the curse is broken (although the Yankees still hold the most championships at this point).

Whether five years is enough to be a drought is up to debate, though one must admit the expectations are still very high for teams such as the Red Sox, the Yankees, the Braves, the Cardinals, and all the other teams who are almost always in the hunt for division titles, league pennants, and championships.

On a related note, a user with IP address 68.187.229.249 keeps wiping out the entire article. Three words: banned for life!

"The Yankees also have more championships than any other top league professional team." This information in the article is false, the Yankees have 26 championships, Juventus has 28. DaDoc540 06:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, 27 actually. And I'm not sure that all 27 are very credible at the moment.... --Chancemichaels 20:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

disputed

I doubt the factual accuracy of the claim that the Yankees can directly trace their history back to the Indianapolis team of the Western League. Although the five teams of the Western League to survive merged with the American League, it was my understanding that there wasn't a specific translation that team x is now team y. I cite Baseball_Reference's section on the Yankees that the history of the team begins in 1901 in Baltimore. Roodog2k 22:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what, if baseballreference.com says that they started in Baltimore, and there is no reference to this day that says that they started in Indianapolis, then I am going to remove Indianapolis. Sportskido8 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Current record

As I've stated in edit summaries, I don't think it is a good idea to include daily updated team records for sports teams: [3]. There are two key reasons:

1. Wikipedia is not a news service, and providing current standings is not what an encyclopedia is for;
2. MostlyRainy's caveat of "as long as I can update it" [4] admits the inherent problem that if an update is missed (which is a reasonable assumption), the information would immediately be inaccurate.

Other editors at other pages seem to agree [5]. --mtz206 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Another edit that agrees: [6] -- Win777 18:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Further to that, season highlights should be kept to a minimum. See some of my most recent reversions - the entry for the 2006 season should not contain more than a few historical events. The Yankees beating Billy Wagner and the Mets is not a significant point in the teams history and should not be added. Neither is Matsui's broken wrist. As has been mentioned above, this is not a news service. The entries for 2004 and up contain too many minor details when compared to the entries for the 50's, 60's and 70's. A few years should not overshadow entire decades. 22:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nationality of players

Can we check the nationality of players on the roster. I'm not a big big fan, so i'm not sure myself, but I doubt Mussina is Chinese and Jeter is Japanese. ???

I'm sure this as an act of vandalism. It has been corrected previously.Djramey 18:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgotten Mascot

I find it interesting that the quick facts sections firmly states, "The Yankees have no mascot". This should be changed to, "currently have no" or alternately, "no longer have a". This statements' predominant appearance is most likely due to the fact that most Yankees fans want to forget about their original mascot; a big eagle that was named "Doodle" or "Dandy" (I'm not sure which), who was reviled by the fans and quickly gotten rid of. Nevertheless, this info should be noted and added as it is a part of Yankees history, albeit trivial.

Find a verifiable source of this information and add it to the article. Yankees76 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Half Outlook

As the All-Star Break approaches, it's time to assess how the Yankees are doing this season. They surely miss Hideki Matsui and Gary Sheffield. True they managed to get two lopsided wins, but with two ugly losses sandwiched in between it's clear they could use another bat. As I write this, the Yankees for scheduled to finish a series with the Cleveland Indians and then head to play a three game series with the Devil Rays before the break. While the Devil Rays have not played well overall, they have played the Yankees tough -- two of the four Yankee victories against them were decided by two runs in extra innings. This will be an important series because each win will allow the Yankees to gain ground in wild-card or AL East standings. After an extended four day break, the Yankees get to play the White Sox themselves in the Bronx, followed by a series against the Toronto Blue Jays at Skydome. They will meet the White Sox at Comiskey on August 8. The Yankees will play not one, but two doubleheaders against the Red Sox on August 18 and September 16. The Yankees will also play 7 games against the Angels, but only one of them will be at 10pm. We will ultimately see if the Yankees can continue their playoff run. While they're not playing as bad as the Braves, they will need some consisent pitching and hitting if they Yankees hope to be one of the elite eight vying for that elusive ring every play dreams of getting this October. Mostly Rainy 07:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

---I believe you are referring to this: http://www.baseballroadtrip.net/A/AAdvanced/Midwest/BattleCreek/images/PICT0031.jpg the mascot, doodle, of the battle creek yankees. A yankees minor league affiliate.

• What are you talking about??? Also please sign your posts in talk pages. -- Michael Greiner 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy, revisited

The Controversy section in the article is an interesting debate, but is not encyclopedic: it cites no sources and appears to be mostly original research. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I suggest its removal. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't belong. Yankees76 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. While I was editing the article today I saw this section and wondered if I should remove it. Sportskido8

Since no opposition in a week, I removed the section. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick Facts

This section needs some work. For one, the bleacher creatures paragraph is not a "quick fact" and should probably be its own section. I may work on this a little and if anyone has some input let me know. Sportskido8

Split "Season records & postseason appearances"

To help manage the size of this large article, the "Season records & postseason appearances" section should be split into its own article. Comments? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a tough call. It does take up a lot of room but it's a nice change from viewing a big block of text. If it's on it's own page it might be ignored too. I'm indifferent to its splitting. --Sportskido8

As soon as we get this figured out I can re-nominate it for a featured article. It will get a lot more consideration this time around I think. --Sportskido8 (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna remove the "split box" for a few days to see what the general public has to say about the table. --Sportskido8 (talk) 14:29, 04 August 2006 (UTC)

Disabled List

Two players (Sturtze and Rasner) are listed as 60-Day's. Do we then need to also list 15-Day players? Phillips, Cairo, Matsui, Sheffield et al... Djramey 18:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Elston Howard

I can't believe no one has noticed this, but the number under his name in the Retired Numbers section is incorrect. Number 32, NOT 34, was retired for Howard. I have removed the image with the number 34 on it from the section, and left a message on the talk page of the contributor who uploaded the image to correct it. Rollosmokes 18:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hah! Sorry about that. Already explained the situation on Rollosmokes' talk page, but might as well explain here too.

If you look at the edit when I added them all, I put in a link to number 32, which led to nowhere. When I looked I realized that I had linked to an image that didn't exist, since I'd made 34. I linked to that one, thinking that the mistake was in linking to 32.

I made an image of the circle with the pinstripes, and numbers 1-0, so I could easily make any number, but it looks like Sportskiddo fixed it already. Figures something like this pops up the one day I don't check the articles. And yeah, I'm surprised this slid under everyone else's noses until now.Silent Wind of Doom 08:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Storm Troopers?

Maybe for some reason my wikipedia/I.E. interface is screwy, but when I click on "Thurman Munson" where his name appears in the "Retired Numbers" section beneath his #15, the page I get redirected to is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_shirt Obviously, nothing to do with Thurman Munson... I had two of my friends click on the link, one had that come up and the other didn't... is this practical vandalism? Either way, I suggest someone with more wiki experience than myself fix it.

Now fixed, was some uncaught vandalism. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

New York Yankees is this week's Baseball's AID

New York Yankees

Nominated September 4, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by September 25, 2006

Reason

Most well known baseball team. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Deville (Talk) 00:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
3. ForestH2 t/h/c 01:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
4. --Mike 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Michael Greiner 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
6. --Nishkid64 00:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Sportskido8 23:11 CST, 10 September 2006
8. PoliticalJunkie 23:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Chancemichaels 20:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Comments

• In general I support this. I'd love to see it selected for October 3, which will be the first day of the playoffs. (NO, you CAN'T assume they're winning it all this year...) -- dakern74 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Greatest team in all of baseball. --Nishkid64 00:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• The article needs a few more pictures I think. I had more on there but they got stripped away. I know we can get this to FA-status, so let's all give a lot of effort and make it happen. --Sportskido8 23:18 CST, 10 September 2006

Let's get it started! --Nishkid64 20:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I have issue with "their reputation for being a team full of acquired superstars". It's commonly stated, but quite frankly not true. Sorted by games played this year, 6 of the top 9 batters are lifetime Yankees, and it's been that way for quite some time. When compared to other top teams like the Red Sox (3), Tigers (3), Mets (2), and Cardinals (3), they're overwhelmingly a "home-grown" team.

I agree - the common criticism that the Yankees buy their titles is usually leveled by those with only a passing knowledge of the team and the game itself. I've removed the statement and reworded it to be more NPOV. Yankees76 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

6 of the 9 top batters by games? that's cherry-picking your stats. Looking at the starting lineup for the playoffs, only 3 of the 9 starters are from the farm system: Cano, Jeter and Posada. Six of the 9 were acquired by trade or free-agency: Giambi, Sheffield, Rodriguez, Matsui, Damon, Abreu. If you look at the beginning of the season, essentially sub Williams for Abreu, and it's 4 of the 9 from the farm system. Now 3 or 4 out of 9 from the farm system may not be much different from other teams, but lets at least use reasonable measures. Simon12 05:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Matsui has never played a game for another MLB team (see wording 'lifetime Yankees' in the post at the top), and the Game 1 playoff starter Chien-Ming Wang, is also from the farm system. Good try though. Yankees76 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said Matsui wasn't a lifetime Yankee. What I said was Matsui is an acquired superstar, and is not home-grown by any definition, as he did not come from the farm system. You want to use Matsui as an example of how they are "overwhelmingly a home-grown team"? I don't think you'll get very far with that argument. And I'll see your Wang, and counter with Johnson, Mussina, and Wright/Lidle, all acquired from elsewhere. My point was not that the post at top was inaccurate, but that it was worded to make the Yankees look better, as it picked a stat (Games this year) that managed to avoid including Matsui, Sheffield and Abreu, all acquired from elsewhere. I don't know if the Yankees have more or less farm system players than other teams, but their payroll clearly gives them the ability to acquire more expensive players than other teams. By the way, none of this is a criticism of how the Yankees acquire players - they are operating totally with the rules. But to deny the fact that the Yankees are mostly "a team full of acquired superstars", when 9 of their 14 (starting lineup, 4 starters, Rivera) key players starting the playoffs are acquired from elsewhere, is just denying reality.

I think a lot of the criticism is poorly-worded. To be more articulate, the Yankees rely a lot less on their farm system than many other teams do -- something they are able to do because they are particularly well-funded. When the Yankees seek to plug a large hole in their roster, they are able to do it by throwing a lot of money at the problem -- again, because of their funding. Compare guys like A-Rod and Randy Johnson to Mike Lowell and Jon Lester. Sure, the Red Sox have their big stars as well, but they have been with the team arguably longer and are surrounded by a lot more ex-farm guys. I don't hide my Red Sox support, but I'm more interested in calling a spade a spade. The Yankees and the Red Sox have the 1st and 2nd largest payrolls in the MLB, and parts of their success are attributed to that. I don't believe it's disingenuous in saying that the Yankees have had particularly more success as a result of their payroll than, for example, their farm system. Chris 22:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Critics"

This section seems unsourced and biased please fix or remove it if you can't verify criticisms they should be removed see also WP:POV-- yo 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Team captains

There was no reason to move the Teams Captains table the article on New York Yankees award winners and league leaders so I have revereted it back to its' previous form. MOving it to that article makes no sense, as Captain status has nothing to do with MLB awards like every other one of the awards listed in that article. Yankees' Captain status is one of the more treasured pieces of history in the organization, removing it from this article here is unwarranted. It is just as relevent as retired numbers and I have added it near that section to reflect as such. AriGold 16:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Important Things

1. There needs to be A LOT more than 17 references for this article. Can somebody make this their main priority? Like take an hour or so to gather up as many as possible?
2. The 1960's section needs a picture or two.

These two things will really help. --Sportskido8 15:11 CST, 22 September 2006

21st Century section balance

Now that the season is over, some serious work needs to be done on this section. The 2002 season has one sentence. The ultimately very similar 2006 season (AL best record, lost in ALDS in 4 games) has about 23 sentences. A little more detail on 2002, and a lot less on 2006, would improve things. Simon12 03:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I cut a good deal, so it's a bit better now, but still could be cut more.Simon12 03:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The word 'surprisingly' needs to be removed from the notice about them being defeated in the 2006 ALDS - it is purely opinion and does not reflect team facts.

You're right. Good luck with that.  ;) —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not an opinion, it's fact that it was a surprise. The Yankees were heavy favorites in this series. For example, 7 writers/editors from the Sporting News all picked the Yankees to win, and none in more than 4 games. Four predictions from writers from the Detroit News, all for the Yankees. Betting odds before the series had the Yankees at 1/1 to win the pennant, the Tigers were at 7/1. (I can't find direct odds on the Yankees/Tigers series). But the Yankees were heavy favorites, so their loss was a surprise. But I'll change it to "heavy favorite", it probably reads better. Simon12 03:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also add in at least a few of those citations in the article itself. (If I missed them, I apologize). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a couple in.

The whole 21st century needs to be summarized - with alot of historically insignificant information pulled. There does not need to be a year by year breakdown of the last 6 years. Check out the DiMaggio era, where an entire decade (1930's) is summarized in just over two blocks of text, and the 50's - arguably the team's most successful decade, which takes up about as much space as the entire 2005-2006 entry. The fact that Matsui's injury gets an entire paragraph is ludicrous, as it's a minor event in the team's history. Melky Cabrera is barely a footnote in team history - why is he even mentioned? Should we put a mention about someone like Clete Boyer too then? Of course not.

The 2005-2006 offseason gets as much text as Don Larsen's perfect game in the World Series! Did Jeremy Bonderman and Joel Zumaya do anything that warrants their mention on the Yankees article? Not really. One well-written sentence can summarize this year's ALDS loss to the Tigers. Let the Tigers page or even Bonderman and Kenny Rogers individual page discuss their contributions in depth. These are reasons (when all added up) why the article is too long and it clearly needs to be addressed so that there is a concise summarization of periods of time. I'm going to wait a week or so and then begin this clean up unless I get overwhelming feedback that says the opposite. I want to get this article profiled, and nothing is getting done to bring that closer to fruition. Discuss. Yankees76 19:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Retired number formatting

The formatting of the retired numbers is inconsistent. Some of the years appear to the left of the number, others appear on top. This is due to some having break tags and others not having them. I fixed it once, but for some reason it was changed back. I'll fix it one more time, and if someone reverts it, I'd appreciate it if they could explain why. Brad E. Williams 13:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Odd. I don't know why the years would appear to the left, and it never has when I viewed it. I put the break tags in whenever they're taken out, although I forget if I figured it out on my own, or if someone else was the first to do it. You see, the boxes center vertically as well as horizontally. Therefore, when the name needs to take up two lines, the number and year are pushed up to compensate. This puts the years and numbers out of allignment, which makes the section look horrible. I don't know if it comes out alligned on your computer, which doesn't seem to see eye-to-eye with mine. With the added breaks, the names all take up two lines, and everything lines up, making the section look a whole lot neater, and overall better. Silent Wind of Doom 05:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As they are now, they look fine. What I was referring to was that some were like this -

|'''(1986)''' [[Image:YankeesRetired1.PNG|95px|]]<br><br><b>[[Billy Martin]]

and that made the year appear on the side. Right now, they're all like this:

| <br> '''(1986)''' <br> [[Image:YankeesRetired1.PNG|95px|]]<br><br><b>[[Billy Martin]]

and they look fine. That explanation is a little convoluted, so I hope you understand what I mean. Brad E. Williams 17:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The retired numbers really line up for you? Lemme see if I can format it some other way to make it look good for both of us. Silent Wind of Doom 05:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (EDIT: I put things together, erasing some of the unneeded gaps, and added the part they played in the organization. If anyone thinks it looks to crowded, I can alter it. Heh. I must say, I'm proud at what we've done with this section, and we seem to be starting a trend. I noticed that the Red Sox and Brewers pages have done the same thing within the last few weeks, including making the background color the color of the wall the numbers hang on.)

I like that addition, but it might look better if the parentheses were removed and the font was made smaller (maybe 75%?). Also, I'm wondering if we should just make each name two lines so that the table cells are all the same size and that part is consistent. What do you think? Brad E. Williams 11:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I did some rearranging in the section. I reduced the font size of the year and moved that note to the bottom, split all the names into two lines for consistency, removed the parentheses around the position, and removed captaincies from their positions. Feel free to revert or edit if you think it sucks. Brad E. Williams 13:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I'd already made all the names two lines with my last changes. I do, however, like the new version. I'd like to acknowledge captaincies, but I suppose it's not necessary with the captain list right under it. By the way, anyone have a decent detailed picture of the retired numbers at Shea, so I can fix this up for the Mets too? Just upload it and put it in my discussion page. Silent Wind of Doom 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Weird. I double-checked the revision immediately before mine, and the names of DiMaggio, Mantle, Mattingly, Howard, Stengel, and Jackson don't have their first and last names split up. I uploaded a screencap here: [7] Anyway, glad you like the new version.  :-) Brad E. Williams 18:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the screenshot. I figured out the problem. It seems there is a difference between how our computers format the lettering. I don't know if it's the browser, or a setting we have set differently, but for me, Dimaggio, Mattingly, and a few others skipped to two lines because of their length. Hence, they screwed up everything. The extra formatting helped, but it screwed up things on your computer. To make things look better, I only made the single-line names into two lines, figuring the others already were, but they weren't on yours. That's what the problem was. Silent Wind of Doom 07:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nickname: "The Bronx Bombers"

The nicknames of various teams have been added to the templates in quotation marks under the name. It was editted out of here, and the editor said that he worried that it would be considered official. While the nickname is basically official, being used constantly by personnel and the like. However, it's probably best not to get into an editting war, so what do you guys think? We can discuss it here. Silent Wind of Doom 06:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but it should be noted that there are other nicknames for the team (though less popular)Yankees76 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I really can't think of any besides the Bronx Bombers, but I know there are others. Can we get a pretty good list going here, whether current or defunct? When we have enough, we can put them in the article. Silent Wind of Doom 22:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head - The Pinstripers, Yanks, Men in Pinstripes, Murderers' Row, The Bronx Zoo... Yankees76 05:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

When Miller Huggins was manager they were often referred to as the "Hugmen". Apparently using a manager based nickname was common back then, as an article I saw on the Yanks vs Connie Mack's A's was titled "Hugmen beat Mackmen 8-3". Simon12 14:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Murderer's Row really refer to a part (sometimes a big part) of the lineup, not the team as a whole? The Bronx Zoo was Sparky Lyle's book title, not a real nickname for the team. Bronx Bombers and the Yanks are the only ones, in my opinion, in the running, and I'd say put 'em both up.Tvoz 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. Murderer's Row was the nickname given to the 1927 Yankees. The Pinstripers" is also very common.[8] Yankees old-timers day teams are usually called "The Bombers" and "The Pinstripers". Yankees76 19:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about Pinstripers, but to me it's really more about the old guys, not the current team. You're also right that Murderer's Row refers to the '27 Yanks, and I've heard it used for the power part of the current lineup when things are going well. In any case, I think Yanks and Bronx Bombers are the leaders. Any other folks want to weigh in? (Go Mets, I guess)Tvoz 04:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Cap Logo" is Wrong

Just for the record, the cap logo currently on the page next to the Uncle Sam hat logo is the wrong logo - it's not featured on the Yankees caps. There are two logos on Yankee game uniforms, and the one on the page is neither. The first logo is on the breast of the home jersey and it looks like this: [9]. The second logo is on the cap, and it looks like this:[10]. The logo on the main page is the logo that is on the field behind home plate at Yankee stadium:[11] - not on the cap or uniform. There are unauthentic caps [12] with that logo on them, however they are not worn by the New York Yankees. I've been unable to remove the logo on the page without seriously ruining the formatting. Can somebody look after this? Thanks! Yankees76 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one bothered by this.. It's a common mistake, but the logo shown is the Yankees' current print logo. The cap logo is very similar, closer to the print logo than it is to the jersey logo, but it's not the same. The easy way to see the distinction is the diagonal bar on the "N" - it's straight, as opposed to the curved bar of the print logo.

For the record, the Yankees have no less than four versions of the interlocking "NY" logo - one for the jerseys, one for the caps, a thicker version for the batting helmets and the print logo. Carryovers from an earlier age, when logos weren't processed and vetted by armies of ad agencies and focus groups.

I'll see if I can work up a vector image of the real cap logo - best thing to do, I think, is swap out images. --Chancemichaels 01:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Die-hard fans tend to notice things that casual and bandwagon fans do not. Thanks in advance for looking after this! Yankees76 14:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you find the cap logo that's not on a cap? Every picture of the logo I could find is of either this one or the one on the uniform, so I used this one, not thinking it would cause such a stir. If you can find one that looks good, or can be edited to look good, put it in. Just make sure it's of even height and width. Silent Wind of Doom 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Chancemichaels, have you had any luck with this? I've been unable to find anything online. Perhaps contacting the team could be an option - but I'd prefer not to go that far. Yankees76 14:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Got one. I'm working on a slightly better version in Illusrator - the raised embroidery makes it hard to get the exact outline from a photo. I hope you didn't take offense, Silent Wind of Doom. --Chancemichaels 19:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Nah, don't worry. I'm glad that we could find a real one. I just put in the best I could find. To be honest, while it was incorrect, I thought the other one looked better, and that's why I kept quiet. Of course, it is best to be more accurate, though. I just had to jump in and defend myself by mentioning that it was the best I could find when Yankees76 said that casual and bandwagon fans wouldn't notice the different. While he likely was not insinuating that I, the one who put it there, was a bandwagon fan who couldn't notice the difference, it could look that way to others who read all this. It's a good version, although it needs to be squared off rather than rounded. I could do a quick fix in paint and have it up by the night (I gotta go somewhere right now). If yours comes out better when you're done, you could replace it. Silent Wind of Doom 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keeping Quick Facts

I disagree with the removal of "Quick Facts" and have reinstated the section, but I'm bringing it here for discussion in the spirit of not shooting first and asking questions later, which the precipitous removal seems to me to have been. I am not an administrator and I have no connection to the creator of "Quick Facts" or the editor who removed it, by the way - I'm just another Wiki reader and editor trying like most here to make it as useful and comprehensible as possible.

To me, "Quick Facts" is a useful section, especially in an article of this length. It's another version of infoboxes that are used throughout this encyclopedia, but "Quick Facts" here organizes another set of information for quick retrieval by readers who don't necessarily have the time or inclination to read the whole page.

The simple statement that "Quick facts do not belong in an encyclopedia article" is not self-explanatory. It seems to me to be without basis, considering the prominence of infoboxes, so I think the section should remain. But I'd be interested in knowing what others think and if there was a rationale or precedent behind the removal. I don't have a horse in this race, as I said - this is just my opinion as a user.

I don't want to get involved in an edit war, and I hope that keeping the section in, and trying to reach consensus here, is productive. Tvoz 20:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the rivals part per Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball guidelines. Michael Greiner 22:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm...me and several others have been working on this article for a very long time and when this was submitted for a peer review and eventually a FA nomination, several critics said to remove the quick facts part of it. It simply is not encyclopedic...meaning that it should be in prose form instead of a list. Sorry, but I must remove it. --Sportskido8 19:01 C.S.T. 22 October 2006

Quick facts got removed? It is a part of EVERY baseball team article. Every single baseball article has a quick facts page, and that's because it has very useful information. This is information about the team, put in a form that is easy to read, doesn't have mindless babble, and doesn't unesecarily stretch the team template. Most of this stuff doesn't deserve it's own heading, but still needs mention. We could put it in the team template, but that doesn't need to be stretched any longer. It's the same as the trivia section almost every article in Wikipedia has, but in a better form. Who in their right minds said at the review that it was unencyclopedic to put this in? You might as well have people telling you to delete the whole team template and turn it all into prose. Take all the lists out of the whole friggin' encyclopedia. These people obviously would rather have a site that makes them hunt around for information instead of a site that helps them. Silent Wind of Doom 01:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh. One should never post in a talk page while angry. Anyway, I still stand beside my statement that the quick facts section should stand, and it's ludicrous to take it out. Silent Wind of Doom 03:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, wait a second, Sportskido8 - what do you mean "Sorry but I must remove it"? What happened to discussion and consensus? I put the section back in earlier after you removed it precipitously, without any discussion and a non-explanation in the edit summary, and I posted a request for discussion here. Your response is to remove it again and say sorry, but you must?

I don't doubt that you've worked on this article for a long time, but I don't see what difference that makes, and your only "explanation" of why this is not encyclopedic seems to be that some critics thought so. You didn't respond to my point - like, what about the infoboxes which are the same sort of lists and are ubiquitous here as are many other lists. I just did a random look at five or six disparate MLB teams' articles and I see that indeed all of them have similar, useful, quick facts sections, as Silent Wind of Doom said. It belongs here too.

And by the way, who said that everything in an encyclopedia has to be in prose form? Furthermore, if you thought it should be in prose form rather than a list, why, may I ask, didn't you take the time to convert it into prose and put it where you think it should be, rather than just arbitrarily lopping it off? Are you aware that you removed some information, like about music, that appears nowhere else? I think this is not the way to edit a page, and I object to the high-handedness of your action, and then your repeat performance, in the face of this discussion having been opened.

Does anyone else want to comment? I said I don't want to get involved in an edit war - and I don't - but I think asking for discussion and consensus was the right way to proceed, and ignoring that request and high-handedly going in and removing a section again is not. I'll wait to put it back in, but not for too long. Tvoz 04:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Sportskido8 on this. This article was a Featured Article Candidate, and upon review, one of the key points that was used to deny it being a featured article was the "Quick Facts" section. It was described as "horrible and unencyclopedic", and was suggested by number of reviewers that it "needs to be turned into prose and distributed elsewhere." Not all of the suggested edits from this review have been completed at this time, in part because of amount of time used debating issues like this, as well as the time needed to constantly review/revert/verify the edits of vandals and other POV inserts that pop up daily. Not to mention the lack of organization amongst WikiProject Baseball members who made this the current Baseball Article Improvement Drive collaboration some weeks ago but have yet to incorporate any meaningful edits or take any steps to prepare this article for a second FA review. Also, some of the information in the Quick Facts is either redudant (having already appeared elsewhere in the aritcle), factually incorret (George Steinbrenner III is technically not owner of the team - the team is owned by Yankee Global Enterprises LLC an ownership group of which Steinbrenner is the principal owner), or simply unsourced. Have any of the other teams with a "quick facts" section been reivewed or passed as a featured article? If so the quick facts section could be revisted, if not there's no reason to put it back in pending another review that determines it needs one. Yankees76 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If some of the facts were wrong, then you should have gone in and changed them. There's a certain amount of redundancy always on a page, especially of this length, regarding basic facts like date the team began for example; the purpose of Quick Facts seems to be to pull together a set of data points and put them in one place for a quick reader. Like infoboxes, which you and Sportskido8 have avoided responding to. Saying that this type of section is "unencyclopedic" and leaving it at that is opinion, and in mine it is just plain wrong - look around wiki. The article, by the way, was horrible at the time it was submitted for FA for reasons that went well beyond some reviewers' dislike for Quick Facts. Read the critics after Quick Facts was removed. I wouldn't know if these same people have complained about Quick Facts on other team pages, or if those pages were submitted and accepted or rejected for FA. I'm not a Wiki baseball fanatic. I'm interested in the Yankees article, and I think QUick Facts -obviously with the correct information in it - enhances the article. I don't need a review to determine that - it's not all about the opinions of reviewers. Quick Facts makes it consistent with all other MLB teams' pages, and it should go back in unless some kind of Wiki-wide decision is made (and why would it be??) to remove it from all MLB articles. Yes, you're right that energy should be put into improving the page - but I don't see that taking out a useful section is the way to do that. Our mutual goal should be to make it a good page, useful to readers - not to satisfy the particular feelings of some individual critics. Tvoz 15:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would I edit a section that is not in the article? I was merely looking at what you're looking to insert into the article by looking through the history of the page. Sure the info is wrong, but I'm not resinserting it with the correct information if I don't feel the section belongs in the first place.

The goal with the Yankees article is to have it featured. It's been rejected twice. Both times, the Quick Facts section was pointed out as something "needs to be converted into prose". As such some of the editors who have been working diligently on the article over the last few months have removed it so that that third review doesn't fail for this same reason. No other MLB team has been qualified (or as far as I know even been considered) as a Featured Article, so it makes little sense to base what we're doing here on those teams articles. Instead, check out the Chicago Bears and New England Patriots articles - thease are the only two featured articles of sports teams and neither has a "quick facts" section. Yankees76 16:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it was claimed somewhere that all of the peer review complaints were fixed - yet I see just in the first paragraph that it still calls "dynasty" a phrase. I'm going in to fix that, but actually I think the energy used to remove "Quick facts" in the first place would have been better spent correcting the incredibly poor writing that some of the page has - I'm guessing that QF was an easy target. The page needs work by people who can write. Tvoz 15:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, unfortuneately, this is a popular article, and gets upwards of 10 edits/day or more depending on the time of year. There are alot of new contributors/IP addresses and others who make alot of changes with different writing styles and levels of education. Poor writing is bound to happen. Yankees76 16:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A few things to keep in mind Tvoz. One, a lot of the MLB team pages look like garbage. I hate to be that drastic, but many of them contain huge lists and quick facts sections that just make them look terrible...like they were put together in a matter of minutes. Second, we DID convert most or all of the old quick facts section into prose already. As you can see, the Bears and Patriots articles do not have them for a reason. I understand that they're "quick" and useful but the critics have spoken and I'll have to go along with them on it. As for FA-status, this article needs a lot of things. It needs better writing, a LOT more references and it may need to be split up into "History of the New York Yankees" and "New York Yankees". I have always been opposed to the latter, but if that's what it takes then I guess it may have to be done at some point. --Sportskido8 11:23 CST, 23 October 2006

Keeping/Removing the Quick Facts Pt. 2

There are only 10 B-Class baseball team articles, and only one of them has had a peer review and FA review (the Houston Astros - and it failed on 3 suggestions in total - not really a "review"). This article has had 1 peer review and 2 FA reviews. It's had the most (and really only) feedback on what should be included and what shouldn't of any MLB team. Other teams should be basing their articles on what is done here - not the other way around. Yankees76 16:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

EXAMPLE OF MATERIAL LOST IN REMOVING QUICK FACTS: where's all the stuff about the music? It could go into a Trivia section, I suppose, but that was a nice part of Quick Facts, and now it's gone. And I think it would be overkill to start a "music" section. So the wholesale removal of the section still seems to me to be the wrong move. Also, for the record, the music stuff was more prose than a list - it just had bullets. Are they also teling us not to have bullets, making the page just a mass of "prose"?Tvoz 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think our goal should be to have this be a good article - even a Wiki-endorsed "GOOD" article - and that it be clear, correct, and useable by readers. If it is chosen as a featured article, terrific, but I don't think that should be a goal unto itself, and it certainly isn't mine. As for the specifics - I went in and edited the piece through 1979 for grammar, sense, and to improve the writing. I'll do more too. Without good writing the piece will never be a FA - no matter if you shorten it, or take out Quick Facts, or follow any other suggestions made. I understand that other pages had little more than lists and QFs, but that's not the case with this page at this time. We have text, charts, pictures, and a list or two - in my view that makes for the beginnings of a very good article, whether or not some arbitrary people decide to name it such. This article is not dominated by Quick Facts - that's a silly suggestion.

I'd be interested in hearing from other folks on this. meanwhile I'll continue to do what I can to improve the writing. (Btw, I thought IP addresses are banned from editing this page - so the bad writing can't be blamed on them, not in an ongoing way anyway.)

Oh - I also think that the Casey Stengel Time cover is a great pic and I added text to justify its inclusion - the article now refers to the cover as an example of Casey's publicity acumen. (I also think Wiki takes an incorrect position regarding fair use of magazine covers vs book covers - in the proper circumstances both should be allowed - but in order to avoid the pic being removed again, I followed their requirement.) Tvoz 17:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses were only banned on October 5th. Acheiving a GA or A class rating really goes hand-in-hand with becoming a Featured Article (with some subtle differences - most notably length) Longer articles are generally better suited to be FA than GA articles. The difference is that GA articles unlikely to be suitable featured article candidates. I think that if we submitted today, we could get a GA rating - so I've done that, along with a rewrite of the lead in paragraph to fit the criteria. The Yankees article is just as good as the last article I took to GA rating, Mickey Mantle. If it fails, at the very least we get (probaby) one final list of things to tweak bfore we make the bid for FA once again. (The review process is similar too - so you're bound to get the same critique about removing the Quick Facts - possibly by the same reviewers). As a side note the San Francisco Giants have had the Quick Facts section removed. (done by another editor - not one of us - in August). I do like your idea and it might be a good idea to grab the GA rating now while we work towards the A and Featured rating.

With regards to the music - is it notable enough to be included in this article? If asked, are you able to provide verifiable sources for that information? Information like that and the whole "The Bleacher Creatures", "Celebrity fans", "Critics" sections (actually the whole "Popularity" sub section) really either should get their own articles or belong on a different article other than the teams main entry. As Sportskido noted above, the full length history of the team will probably need to be made into it's own article, with a short history left here. There are far more important issues than wether or not "Enter Sandman" is included. That info will have already been on Rivera's article anyways. (or at least it should) Yankees76 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think music should be reinstated, yes. It makes the page interesting. I am against dumbing the whole thing down in some kind of quest for wiki approval. Frankly, I'm not so sure the page is ready for "good page" status - still a lot of holes that need to be filled in. For example, is it possible that Jim Bouton and Sparky Lyle aren't mentioned? They both wrote books about the Yankees. Goose Gossage? Mickey Rivers? Graig Nettles? These guys should all be talked about.Tvoz 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the new pictures look great. I hope they stay. --Sportskido8 20:41 CST, 23 October 2006

Thanks - I'm going to add a few more. They are all properly tagged as fair use publicity photos so I don't expect a problem.Tvoz 01:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't call it dumbing down - it's more like trimming the fat. The question with this team is where do you draw the line for player inclusions? How important are players like Nettles and Mickey Rivers in the franchises history? The page is littered with references to normal everyday players. Wally Schang? Mike Pagliarulo? Mike Blowers? Octavio Dotel? Minor, minor figures in Yankees history - so minor they shouldn't be in this article. A category should be created for New York Yankees alumni and their name and link to their own page should be placed there. By the way - FANTASTIC job with all the edits you made today! Some nice work done there! Yankees76 04:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First, thanks - I appreciate that. I've now gone through the whole page and edited it - I'm sure it can use more editing, but I got rid of some of the more glaring stuff and I think made it read much better. Hope I got the unofficial/official captain part right - the original was an unclear mess, and I tried to make sense of it, but if I didn't I hope someone fixes it.

As for "minor" players - come on, Graig Nettles was not a minor everyday player. He was a team captain and a brilliant third baseman. Mickey Rivers was also an essential part of the championship late 70s teams. Goose Gossage? Come on. You may not remember them, but these guys were the top and I think they could be referenced here as more than just alumni. Probably my bias, but the late 70s championship teams were not run-of-the-mill. As far as I know the guys you mentioned were pretty minor - except for Wally Schang - so yeah, leave 'em out unless someone can write something about them that is important. (Look at their wiki pages - other than Schang, not much there.) But Bernie Williams? As for Bouton and Lyle - the fact that they wrote enormously popular books about their time as yankees is not irrelevant to the article - it's late now, but I'll look at that tomorrow as where it might go well - could be a trivia section I suppose. And I do want to see the music stuff back in. All of this makes the article comprehensive and rich - I don't agree with you guys wanting to keep paring it down. By all means leave out the boring stats, and the meaningless factoids like "this was the only time that a player with an odd number got a hit in an even numbered inning in a playoff game in which the team was not the division champ" - but don;t tell me that Graig Nettles is the equivalent of that. Tvoz 07:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I may not remember them. LOL That's a good one. Of course I know who they were - any Yankee fan worth their salt knows about Nettles, Rivers and the Goose, but if we were to give shout outs to every player we think is worthy the page would be huge. We have to keep the article length within guidelines - split off sections that can be split off into separate articles. Personally I've love to include the guys you've mentioned, throw in Lou Pinella, Johnny Sain, Frank Leja, Hank Bauer, Enos Slaughter, Bob Cerv and the guy who decided what girls got into Babe Ruth's hotel room and who didn't. I'd even throw Brien Taylor in there just because it's such a notable story. But, we have to trim the fat. We have the toughest job of Wiki editors because the Yankees have entire teams of star player that deserve to be listed off. That's why I suggested a category for Yankees alumni with a link in this article that goes to them, and save the text space in the main article for the best of the best Yankees - the guys that set records, threw perfect games, won MVP, Cy Young, hit Game 7 winning home runs - Hall of Famers, Triple Crown winners, broke color barriers etc. - the cream of the Yankee crop. Bernie Williams needs to be there - he holds MLB playoff records. Yankees76 03:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous problems for a Trivia page. First of all, isn't it mostly Quick Facts but in a disorderly and chaotic manner? It's the listing that you guys jumped on me for when I put a Quick Facts section in. Also, it's a place where the content is relative. Anyone can come on and put any little insignificant fact. There's a lot of trivia in 103 years of a baseball team. I think the trivia section would be a bad idea.

However, there are things that need to be addressed. As it seems that those here will not allow Quick Facts to be reinstated, I'll add sections for the things that we lost, the primary ones being music and the Radio/TV affiliates. I think YES needs at least a small section, with a redirect at the beginning to YES's page. Oh, and, as you seem to be doing well finding pictures that can be used here, and knowing what pictures can be used, could you add new ones for the Torre and 21st Century section? As it stands now, all the nice pics have been replaced with ones taken from the stands during a game, which are lackluster compared to the ones that were here before, and could use replacing. (Sorry to whoever took them. No offense.) Silent Wind of Doom 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Silent Wind of Doom, I'll look for some other pictures for 21st century. And I'm glad you're putting in music and YES - as for Quick Facts, well, it seems to me to be pretty much a standoff with 2 in favor and 2 against -not exactly an overwhelming response on either side of the argument, so I haven't given up. I don't buy the GA/FA argument, and honestly I don't really care about a few "peer" reviewers' opinions about this - I do care what other editors who work on this page think though. I stand by my point that what our goal should be with this article is the same as for any we work on - that it be a good article (good, as in useful to the reader, not good as in deemed good by some other wiki folk).Good as in well written, comprehensive, fair, etc. The Yankees are a big topic, they have a rich and long history, so the piece is bound to be long. I don't think that's a bad thing. Take a look at any print encyclopedia - there are very short pieces, and very long ones - some even have lists. What is importnat is that there's some consistency, and mostly that there is accurate and interestingly presented content. All of which is why I liked your Quick Facts, in the context of the whole long article. I dont worry about redundancy - not everyone reads an article from beginning to end (in fact i think many people don't) - so let them be able to get some information at a glance. I haven't given up on this.

Wait, Yankees76 - did I leave off Lou Piniella? Shame on me. He totally belongs here too. I get your point - what can I say, they're a great team, always have been, always will. How's that for POV. The Reggie-Goose-Nettles-Munson-Piniella-etc Billy Martin Yanks were a joy to watch, and I'd like to convey that to younger readers who weren't around then. Just as I enjoy reading about Babe Ruth or DiMaggio. So what if the article is long? If it's well written, and informative, and comprehensive, and balanced - it's a good article, despite what a few reviewers have in their minds about what's "good". To say we were "told" to take something out does not seem to me to be the way wikipedia should work, assuming we're not talking about taking out something offensive or biased or inaccurate etc. If "they" think the article is too long to be a featured article, so what? I want to get this to a large audience too, but I think the nature of the topic makes that a foregone conclusion. Anyway, I'm not totally opposed to spinning off some stuff to separate articles, I guess, but really I'd prefer to see it all stay here in this one long article, because it is a big story to tell. If we do it well, I think we can defend the length. (Like, the Beatles should and would have a longer page than some one-hit wonder.) Tvoz 05:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In an ideal situation, the Yankees article could be 10-15 pages, and we could cram every story and bit of lore we can come across. But the manual of style set out by this community (Wikipedia:Article_size) lists some pretty good reasons why an article should be 30 to 35 KB of readable text. And I tend to agree. Yankees76 13:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether they are "pretty good reasons" is a matter of opinion, but they have backed off a bit because of the ability to edit sections. I think more sections and subsections are an important aid to navigating a long page, making the argument about attention span kind of moot. One looks for the section one wants to read. We have sections and subsections, and I would be in favor of adding more of them if there are logical points at which they're needed. I am not advocating cramming in "every story and bit of lore we can come across" - I'm talking about things like including reference to players of distinction and not limiting that to the obvious ones, and having a page about the Yankees that is accurate and does their history and their present justice.Tvoz 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Off-season moves

Is all the off-season move information since 1996 really necessary? Stanton, Brosius, El Duque, Rondell White, Ventura, on through Pavano and Wright. Other then Clemens, Rodriguez and maybe a couple of others, I think almost all the post-season moves should be deleted. Agree/Disagree? Simon12 01:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. We shoud discuss edits here first before making them, Johnny Damon might be another key offseason move, and other editors might feel strongly about other edits. Good call though Yankees76 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

new dynasty/coaches

I'm reinstating the sentence and a half about Torre's coaches in 96 for two reasons: 1) the new dynasty is not only the players, but also the managing team which included Zimmer, Stottlemyre, Randolph, etc. - these guys were more prominent than most coaches were, had a higher profile. (For example, I was a big fan of the Billy Martin years, but couldn't tell you who any of his coaches were. May have known at the time, but it had no lasting impact. I think someone like Zimmer will be remembered, if only for the Fenway brawl, but also because of the way Joe consulted with him during games.) It's under 2 sentences and hardly dominates the section. And 2) right, earlier teams' coaches aren't included, but it is to be expected that recent history gets more detail than earlier history - people writing about it have access to much more information about the present or recent past than the remote past. We can't expect all sections to be exactly the same- not if we want to avoid having a boring page. Tvoz 06:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While it may be expected that recent history gets more detail than earlier history, I don't think it should be that way. I mean, you've got a total of 5 sentences on the 5 straight World Series wins from 1949-1953. If we want to keep this article at a reasonable size, and keep the different eras in the right perspective, then the amount of text on the last 10 years needs to be reduced. And your comment about the Martin's coaches "no lasting impact" is exactly right - coaches, in general, have no lasting impact, and therefore don't belong in the article in my opnion. Simon12 12:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need to mention the coaches for '96 - they're not any more notable than the coaches from 1955, '61 or '77 (as examples). We can leave it in for now though, because it fits nicely with the text around it, but should the article end up being too long - less notable details like this would be nominated to possible removal and moved to their own lists/articles. Yankees76 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The point was not to just mindlessly list some random coaches. The point was that Torre's management style is one of having more evident input from his coaches, as was discussed a lot at the time, and that Torre's style seemed to have been what the team needed at that time. So i think those particular coaches are notable and relevant, and that's why I think they should be where they are. I'll see if I can find a reference to put in there, if that will make people feel better about leaving these coaches in. None of these individual points is all that important, but it's a matter of trying to put some life into this page - still in encyclopedic form and tone - with some detail that makes it enjoyable to read. If I recall correctly, the community also values well-written material, with substance and verifiable analysis, not just info dumpsTvoz 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

GA stuff

Don't get me wrong, this article is very well written and comprehensive. As a baseball fan, I did enjoy a lot of it, but there are some major issues.

1. Sourcing. Namely, there isn't nearly enough. Very little of this article is actually sourced, considering the size of the article and the rich, detailed history available about the franchise.
2. Facts. Just off the top of my head, this article perpetuates the No No Nanette myth. That's not a good sign.
3. Length. It's one thing to be comprehensive, it's another to have too much detail. Perhaps split some sections off? Shorten some of the more trivial information?
4. Images. Good use of illustration, but I'm not entirely sure of some of the fair use rationales. The Don Mattingly photo comes to mind specifically, as it's a promotional photo. There may be another freebie available at commons to use, but this usage may not fly. I suggest getting a look from the folks at fair use.

It needs a lot of work, but the brunt of it is done. Good luck. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The history section needs to be split up somehow.. the article is 81k long, and over half is the history. The recently created History of the New York Yankees seems appropriate. Mlm42 17:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know if there's an easy way to measure the K of the non-text sections in this article, like the roster and retired numbers, so we know what we're talking about here regarding the length. This article is well-structured, with sections that make it easier to read the prose sections, and I think it would suffer greatly from having all of the history material moved out to a separate page. Not the end of the world, but not what I think people look for when they look at a page about the Yankees. What's left if we take out history? Tvoz 18:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And who is to say when something becomes history? The 70s? 80s? 90s? last year? Move all of that to a history page too and then this becomes an article about the New York Yankees' current season and that is not what it should be - this isn't a news service. Again, folks, is our goal simply to meet some arbitrary standards for featured or "good" articles, or is our goal to make this a useful piece of an encyclopedia? I think I've made my position on that clear. Tvoz 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I might have guessed the sourcing was the achilles heal of the article. Those pictures too - while they're nice looking, we need to ensure the fair use rationale is valid. And of course the length - which for GA is too long - that's why I wanted to get this a Featured Article - where the length is less of an issue. Nonetheless - a great job so far - it's come a long way in just a week! I think right now, we need to move the History of the Yankees out of this article and shorten this thing up, while at the same time aggressively removed unsourced statments and find sources for others. Yankees76 19:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

History of the New York Yankees

As noted in the GA comments above, someone created History of the New York Yankees. It was then marked for a Proposed deletion, but I removed that as I thought the article made sense, and it should remain for now. But there needs to be a discussion of whether it's time to move the detailed history to the History article, and have the main article have a higher level summary. Thoughts?Simon12 18:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

See my latest comment in GA above - when does something beciome history? what's left here? Also, the text that was used on the new History page was an older version - the newer edit is tighter and has some sources - so if you end up with a separate page, at least take the best version from this page. Tvoz 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of creating the History article is so that all of the history goes there. This article would contain the "executive summary" of the history. With a link that says something like Main article: History of the New York Yankees. Yankees76 19:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for an example in another baseball article, but couldn't find one. But see New York Giants for an example of how it was done there.Simon12 19:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I've see those and yes you can certainly do that here. But I think the page that remains will be the same kind of boring page that other sports teams have - full of facts, yes, but not much feeling for who the team has been and is. To me, that's egregious for the Yankees, but obviously I am a fan. I can live with a separate History page, and I would expect that a History page might become a GA or FA itself if people do the work and get sources up there - but I will be sad to click on this page and find what I am afraid will remain, for reasons that make no sense to me.

And I repeat my question - when does something become history - I don't mean this facetiously, I am really asking. Would you move things about 2006 to History now, or not until the next season begins? And where will you put information about 2007 as the season is going on? "Nowhere" might be the right answer, but that doesn't seem to be the way people work here - maybe those things should be challenged more in the future (like the paragraph that appeared here declaring that Torre was being replaced about half a second after the Daily News incorrectly said so).

As for an "executive summary" good luck with that - you have an awful lot of history to boil down into a couple of paragraphs. Are you folks sure that you want this GA status so much that you want to denude this page of the stuff that makes this page actually interesting and worthy of being featured? Consensus? Whatever - I do agree with the criticism that there aren't enough sources. I think that is valid, and much more important than arbitrary time-wasting concerns about "Quick Facts" and length. When I added material I tried to include sources, and added sources to some of what I edited when I could find them - but the bulk of the material was here already when I started editing it, so people who put it up might help out on this, and others should do some digging to find credible sources to post, as I will. (THis is true if the history is spun off as well of course.)

If we're voting (and shouldn't we be?) my vote is to defend the inclusion of the Yankees' long and fascinating history right here on the page people will go to when they want to learn about the team,. But I suppose my position was pretty clear already... Tvoz 20:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on replacing those pix....Tvoz 12:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Back when we were fixing up the page, I did it. I made the history page, and began working on a summary for the main page, but the comment of shortening the article not being necessary for FA status, I stopped. However, the page was already made. Someone suggested it for deletion, and, as it didn't seem we'd need it, I left it to die a quiet death. I'd made it with the express purpose of shortening the amount of history on here, not to take it all off. I believe that, if we do move, we should move to a certain cutoff point, and make a summary of that. Then, we keep the remainder here. I only moved up to Steinbrenner's debut, as that seems to be the beginning of the current Yankee era. If one wants to get more specific, one could cutoff at Torre's debut. If one wants to be very picky, we could cut off at the 21st century section, but I think that's too much, and the 21st century section stands better with the introduction of Torre, Jeter, and the new dynasty before it.

I felt the same was Tvoz did. When one wants to read about the current Yankee events, or ones in the close past, they should come here, not to a seperate history page. But, all that being said, I do not believe we should make the move yet. I believe we should make the other changes, leaving the length alone, and then seek FA status. Then, if we get hammered on length, we should do it.

I also added the Music and YES sections. I did not add it, as I did not have enough time before I had to head off to school this morning, but I was planning a small, maybe two 3-4 line paragraphs long, section on Radio and TV personalities. Just a mention of Sterling, Kay, the former players turned YES correspondents, and their contributions to the Yankee family and culture. What do you guys think? Silent Wind of Doom 20:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with adding a short piece about radio and tv personalities Tvoz 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

History is history - unless it documents a current event it goes in the history section. We don't post scores or the daily ins and outs of the team so there's nothing to worry about. In the entire season last year, there were three notable events that might have made the main page after the history section split off - The Boston Massacre 2, Lidle's death and the AL East win/loss in the playoffs.

The executive summary will be simple. I could summarize the entire decade of the 1980's in 2- or 3 paragraphs - tops. It doesn't mean the article will be boring, that's what's great about Wikipedia, you're just a click away from even more information on a topic - someone can read the summary of the 1920's and click on the History of the Yankees link for an even more detailed entry. Not everyone (probably most readers of this article in fact) will want a novel-sized history of the Yankees when they come here.

Tvoz,I think you need to adopt a NPOV when you edit this article - and at the same time take heed of some of the criticism from the four rounds of third party reviewers who don't have an emotional connection to this page and team. It's obvious you're a passionate fan of the team, but you have to work on this article and look at it from the persepective of a non-fan and do what's right for Wikipedia - and for the Yankees but within the manuals of style, policies and guidelines we're all given to work with for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is coming out on CD and it would be awesome to have this article and it's related articles included there. Until it's a GA or FA that's not going to happen. 4 reviews later and we're closer but not there yet. I'd rather make some concessions and see the team on the front page of Wikipedia than create a self-indulgent mess that only hardcore Yankee fans can appreciate.

I vote Yes to carry on and split the history section off. But I like SWOD's idea to do the other recommendations first and try for FA as is. Good idea! Yankees76 20:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anything that is in the current version comes close to qualifying as "a self-indulgent mess that only hardcore Yankee fans can appreciate." I do have an NPOV point of view when I'm editing the page - I was careful about the adjectives, even added the annoying Mike Royko quote, and tried to edit in a way that just told the story without extra verbiage and puffery. Trust me, if I was writing an article about the Yankees not for an encyclopedia, rather than trying to work with the stuff that was previously posted, my POV would be much more prominent. But being NPOV doesn't mean having blinders on about the quality of a page. You want this one to be a GA or FA - it won't be if it's a bore. I'm not NPOV about the Yankees themselves, obviously, and wouldn't have spent the hours I did spend working on the page if I was. I guess that's the catch. Meanwhile, let's try SWOD's suggestion - when the page is in better shape. Sources, folks, is what we need now. Tvoz 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean when you were editing - your edits have been a breath of fresh air to the article and have been very NPOV and ecyclopedic, but some of your reasoning on the talk page hints of bias. Don't let that offend you, it's been hard for me as well not to turn this into a giant entry full of every factoid I can think of, however I decided that it's better to work towards a goal and Sportskido8's lofty goal of becoming the first baseball team to be a featured article was the ticket. There's nothing stopping us from putting up a 120 KB page, but self indulgence like that is certainly what this article was well on it's way to becoming. Wikipedia is thankless work as it is, I prefer to work towards something and accomplish it. Let's get started on the sources! Yankees76 22:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As much as I don't want to see the article split off, it may just have to happen. I felt the same way you did Tvoz, back in the day. But now, as Yankees76 has mentioned, there may be no other way to get it to FA status. If we can get this page in the spotlight, in front of the entire world, well that gets top priority from me at this point. But yes, let's concentrate on the sources first. I haven't seen a FA with less than 50+, so we need to at least double what we have now. --Sportskido8 15:28 CST, 26 October 2006

Sources

I wonder if it might be useful to come with a good list of sources that people can easily use to provide sources for the article. Since much of the history can be sourced from many places, focusing on a few main sources should make sourcing easier. I'll start the list with two sites, both already used in the article:

• New York Yankees official site - history page [13]
• Baseball Almanac Yankees History page: [14]

Any others? Simon12 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Any New York area newspaper should be able to provide many sources through their archives - New York Daily News, New York Post, Bergen Record, and Newsday and just a few (google for the sites). Yankees76 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Yankees also have one of the biggest celebrity fanbases in all of sports." - This cited reference is comprised of admitted fictional content. I believe that this "fact" should be removed. It says that 90% of the Yankees crowd are celebrities. Please! That's completely unrealistic. chowski 18:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. The article is obviously satire. Brad E. Williams 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously! And they say so too:

"©2006 The Brushback.com® All rights reserved. The Brushback is a satire site. None of the features or stories on this site are real. All names are made up, except in cases when public figures are being satirized. All quotes are fictional and any similarity to actual quotes is coincidental."

I'll go take it off the article. I mean, there are a lot of celebrity fans at the Stadium, but... Tvoz 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures Gone

I had a feeling this would happen. Oh well. I'm too tired to argue with an OrphanBot. --Sportskido8 13:40 CST, 7 November 2006

Yeah, me too - i posted a note above when I got the word. I'm going to try to track down the sources and re-upload, but wiki's interpretation of fair use when it comes to pix is much more stringent than I think is warranted, from my knowledge of the publishing industry - however, they're entitled to set their policies and I don't feel like taking it on right now. So I'll see what I can do - if you look, as you probably have, you'll see that the individual players' pages also have no pix or very weak ones.(altho I kinda like Yogi on his 80th birthday), so that's no help. I guess we have to accept that this encyclopedia is very light on pictures. Shouldn't be, but there you go.Tvoz 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that it? We were really getting somewhere, greatly spicing the article up, and now they've been taken away and we're just gonna sit here? What's necessary for a source? If it's a promotional photo, isn't the source the Yankee's Company? It's where it came from, isn't it? Why don't we just put Yankee Global Enterprises LLC as the source and restore the pictures? Silent Wind of Doom 01:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that promotional photos like that should fall under fair use; perhaps the issue is one of lack of sourcing rather than one of fair use, so your solution might work, SWoD. It's certainly worth a shot. Brad E. Williams 21:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)