Talk:Los Angeles Dodgers/Archive 2

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Los Angeles Dodgers/Archive 2 page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Moving History

It seems like the new stuff in moving from Brooklyn is a bit too heavy on editorializing... Is there any way we can clean it up? I'm not advocating removal, there's some good points raised, but it almost seems like to balance it out we'd have to dig up the entire history of the sordid affairs in Chavez Ravine that helped the move as well... Coyote42 07:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Players:Awesome History Great players:Nomar Garciaparra,Jeff Kent,Adrian Beltre,Shawn Green,Jackie Robinson,Steve Finley,Mike Piazza. Rivals:San Francisco Giants (Dodgers have won 44 out of 84 games in the last half a decade.) Rivals Should be these teams in the following order (based on histories): San Franscisco Giants, New York Yankees, San Diego Padres, and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Colorado and Arizona ARE NOT RIVALS of the Dodgers-- just because they are in the same Divsion does not make them so. If you want to do that, add in the Cardinals, the Cubs, Phillies and Reds as well. the cardinals, cubs, phillies, and reds aren't in the NL West division. And the padres are not as much of a rival as the angels. Also, more great players inclued Eric Gagne, Sandy Koufax, Don Drysdale, Cesar Izturis, Paul lo Duca

Trolley dodgers nickname

The page is internally inconsistent.hey every1 im just trying this out It gives dates of 1883 and 1895 for the initial use of the Trolley Dodgers nickname. The 1883 date doesn't make sense since nobody would know that getting to tpark would be a hazard before the team started playing. 66.95.123.6 13:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have only seen brief reference to the "Trolley Dodgers" nickname prior to 1911, and there was no one attributed to the notation. Everything I have read about the Dodgers name is that from 1911 to 1913 they were the Brookly Trolley Dodgers or Brooklyn Dodgers for short, then it changed from 1914 to 1931 the Brooklyn Robins because of Wilbert Robinson being their Manager. They went back to the Brooklyn Dodgers for the 1932 season and that has been their name ever since.Terry Chapman (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logos section out of control

What's with the Logos section? Do we really need things like the 3D logo? In addition, the "B" is not correct. This section should be cleaned up, unless someone has a valid reason for the way it is now. -- Chancemichaels 17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

And now it's even worse, with logos repeated and wrongly identified. I'm going to remove the bulk of the section; if anyone would like to clean it up please feel free to put it back. (edit: wow, that was quick. I posted my comment, saw that I hadn't signed it, and by the time I clicked to edit we got into an edit conflict) --Chancemichaels 18:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

Brooklyn Geography: "Is O'Malley to Blame"

"the Dodgers' owner wanted to drop a cookie-cutter stadium in the middle of Flatbush...The site remains problematic: The proposed Atlantic Yards development in Flatbush has run into opposition..."

The Atlantic Yards are nowhere near what is now (and probably then) called Flatbush. It is on Flatbush avenue, however. So, someone who knows...where did o'malley want to put the stadium? Was it on the Atlantic Yards, and therefore just the "flatbush" reference is confused? Or did he indeed want to put it somewhere that was "in the middle of flatbush," and therefore the present text is wrong about the sites being the same?

I know enough to know it's an inaccuracy that must be fixed; just not enough to know how to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.212.73.251 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I just fixed it, with a cite. Andrew Ross 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname

One of the things that have become a major part of the baseball articles has been the nicknames. They've ben added to the leads as well as the infoboxes. However, the Dodgers are one of the notables not to have one, at least not one mentioned in the article. What nicknames do the Dodgers go by? I'm sure they are not known only as "The Dodgers". I know the Brooklyn Dodgers had many names, but I don't know if those have been abandoned by the franchise and fandom when they moved. - Silent Wind of Doom 18:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of "Blue Crew", I don't know if they have any other.--Freepablo 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Blue Crew" really a noteworthy nickname? It is the Dodgers' name for their official fan club. That seems like a real stretch. --Chancemichaels 20:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

Another Nickname

The Dodgers have also been called the "Bums" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.148.64 (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2007

Not since 1957. --BlueMoonlet 00:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually "Dem Bums" and that name has been used in Los Angeles too. My father-in-law was a season ticket holder in the 1960's & he clearly told me that the term "Dem Bums" was used every year that they lost.Terry Chapman (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bums" and "Dem Bums" were used by Danny Kaye in his 1962 song about the Dodgers. That was only 5 years removed from Brooklyn. I think that usage has faded significantly with time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is WAAAY too long!

Over 80kb in size? Maybe it's time to split this article up, woudln't you agree? Dknights411 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sure agree, their should be a seperate article called Brooklyn Dodgers. It's how the NHL team pages deal with their -relocated- franchises histories. GoodDay 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's too long, but we shouldn't be splitting the article that way. Baseball doesn't regard the Brooklyn Dodgers as a separate team from the LA Dodgers. Better, I think, to to create a History of the Los Angeles Dodgers page, as well as season-by-season pages, moving much of the specific content there and keeping this page as an overview. --Chancemichaels 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

Just because baseball doesn't regard the Brooklyn Dodgers as separate shouldn't limit us from giving then their own article. Besides, if there will be a split, it makes more sense to start by splitting the Brooklyn years and the Los Angeles years into separate articles. Dknights411 04:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Brooklyn Dodgers and History of the Los Angeles Dodgers? I could get behind that. Makes sense. I cannot agree with splitting them - for consistency's sake. --Chancemichaels 17:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

I don't think that it takes anything away from the present franchise by allowing the existence of a page named Brooklyn Dodgers on Wikipedia. A title box could be put at the beginning of the article with:
Brooklyn Dodgers / Franchise: Los Angeles Dodgers
This should make it clear to readers what's going on and provide the clarity you wish to preserve. BTW there is information hidden in the history tab of the Brooklyn Dodgers page; stuff that was contributed before someone redirected the page. It should be integrated into any article that results from this discussion.--Exshpos 20:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any unusual title box or header is necessary. Not only would it be unusual, but that's the purpose of the lead paragraph. Skeezix1000 11:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No MLB team article has separate pages for previous incarnations of the franchise (with the exception of the Expos/National, which is a special case for a number of reasons). I think this is the right policy for baseball, as recently discussed here. The Dodgers article could use some judicious editing, but does not need to be split up. I see three places in particular where this article could be shortened: 1) "Move to California" has accumulated quite a bit of unnecessary detail, which I've been wanting to clean up for a while; 2) the last couple seasons have a bit too many trees and not enough forest; 3) the season-by-season record is very cumbersome and should not be on the main page. Yes, the article is 83kb long, but 33kb of that is the tables and other endmatter, which do not cause any burden to the casual reader. If we can carry out the edits I suggest, I think the page's size is quite appropriate. --BlueMoonlet 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. There are a LOT of relevant information on this article to justify creating multiple articles for the Dodgers, ESPECIALLY with the move to California. And to be quite honest, I think that it a complete tragedy that there is no separate Brooklyn Dodgers article. I'm a sports history aficionado, and I believe it's wrong to mix up the Dodgers Brooklyn heritage with their LA heritage (same thing goes with the Giants). Just because baseball, or the Dodgers themselves doesn't distinguish between the two incarnations, doesn't mean we have to follow that standard, especially when putting the two together makes the article too large. Moreover, I don't like slashing away text just to make the article smaller. The Dodger's own history is far too rich to be treated like that. Instead of losing a lot of the article, why not just split it off to its own article? Besides, what's the problem with giving the Brooklyn Dodgers, or any other relocated franchises, their own articles, anyway? I don't understand why everyone is so reluctant to create article for the Brooklyn Dodgers, or the New York Giants, or even the Kansas City Athletics. These are all different teams with their own unique stories unique to those incarnations, which I feel gets lost when you just lump them together because of the "It's the same freakin' team" excuse. When you consider these reasons, it makes all the more sense to split the articles. Dknights411 04:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I can now prove that the article is not too long, according to Wikipedia norms. WP:Article size gives as a guideline 30kb to 50kb of readable prose. The readable prose in the Dodgers article (from the lead paragraph through "Radio and television") amounts to 48kb. I am not opposed to creating a separate page for the NY-to-CA move (covering both both Dodgers and Giants, I should think, as it was really a single event), which would trim a further 5kb from the Dodgers page. Another idea (perhaps better, perhaps not) would be a general page on "Franchise moves in baseball", on which the detail in the current "Blame O'Malley" section could find a home amid the many similar controversies that have taken place since 1957.

As for "slashing away text just to make the article smaller," my view is that Wikipedia is not meant to contain every single detail on every single subject, but rather to have articles that are inviting to the lay reader, not only in terms of being well-written but also in terms of length and level of detail (again, see WP:Article size) so that the casual reader is not scared away by a wall of impenetrable detail. I am involved in science education, where we constantly have to balance the priorities of exposing students to the important information against tempering the amount of material so that it is able to be received. I think we should do the same here (note: I don't say that to criticize anyone, but just to lay out my priorities so you know where I'm coming from).

As for creating a separate page for the Brooklyn Dodgers, I think that is a matter to discuss on the WikiProject, not on an individual team page. If you think we have given the Brooklyn history short shrift on this page and want to expand it on a page of its own, then I would at least see your argument. But splitting pages up for the purpose of splitting them up just means that fewer readers will read each one. --BlueMoonlet 14:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with "Is O'Malley to Blame?"?

Okay, I have reduced the article's length to 66kb by moving the season-by-season records to a side page, and a few other changes. Of that, only 47kb is the body text. We could get rid of another 5kb (and, in my opinion, significantly improve the flow of the article) by removing the section entitled "Is O'Malley to Blame?". It seems to me that too much space is being given to this one event in team history, and that this back-and-forth debate on whether O'Malley's demands and actions were reasonable is a bit unseemly and distracting. It seems to me that the best conclusion would be to retain the section entitled "Move to California" (which, for full disclosure, I largely wrote) while removing the subsection "Is O'Malley to Blame?" (which I didn't, other than the first paragraph). Certainly a statement to the effect that O'Malley's actions are condemned by many (especially in NYC) is appropriate, but I don't see the need to get into more than that. Remember that the overall length of this article has been questioned, and I believe that economy of words is a virtue.

I would like to ask the rest of you if you agree. Three possible options that I see are 1) retain status quo, 2) Remove the "Blame O'Malley" section, or 3) Move the "Blame O'Malley" section (and perhaps some of the more nitty-gritty aspects of "Move to California") to a side page dedicated to the NY-to-CA move. Whaddya think? --BlueMoonlet 04:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote for #2, remove the whole section... I really don't like the line recently added comparing O'Malley to Hitler... It's all way too POV for my tastes.. a simple bit about the effect on Brooklyn from the Dodgers move can be kept but this section really needs to go away. (Spanneraol 21:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Nicknames Again

Several nicknames have recently been added... most of which are nicknames from the old Brooklyn club.. Are these really relevant to the L.A. Dodgers? The Current dodgers really don't have a regular nick name... does anyone have thoughts on this? Should they stay? (Spanneraol 04:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

They should go. "Blew Crew" is the team's name for its official fan club. "Trolley Dodgers" is a defunct name at best, "The Brooklyn Bums" was never official and "Boys of Summer" refers to the 1955 club specifically. If we are to only use official and current nicknames (which seems to be the pattern with other MLB pages), none of these even come close. --Chancemichaels 21:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

Isn't it obvious that these nicknames deserve to be recorded somewhere? Like, maybe a separate Brooklyn Dodgers page, where team history can be treated with the respect it deserves?--Exshpos 14:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, hold on a moment. We can't take everything out. I've found at least three valid nicknames. The Blue Crew is not just a term for the fan club. It's used for the team as well.

Here are a few for "The Blue Crew"

http://www.kfwb.com/pages/681643.php?contentType=4&contentId=689291

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BLUE+CREW+HOSTS+FIESTA+DODGERS+BLEND+SALSA%2c+SLUGGERS-a083399461

http://homepage.mac.com/jairodelatorre/Menu40.html

http://wcbstv.com/kcbs/dodgers/local_story_122192039.html

And here are a few for "Big Blue" and/or "The Big Blue Wrecking Crew"

http://www.dodgers.cc/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

http://www.bigbluecarcrew.com/

http://sportsblogs.latimes.com/sports_baseball_dodgers/

http://www.dodgers.cc/

As these both have numerous instances in fandom, media, and other sources, they are valid nicknames, and I will put them into the template.--Silent Wind of Doom 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not common nicknames... "Big Blue Wrecking Crew" ??? Give me a break. Thats not a nickname.. We should only use common nicknames.. these don't qualify. Spanneraol 00:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgers "move back to Brooklyn" rumors (1996-2002)

In January 1997, I recall watching a sports program on Los Angeles TV and a group of brothers, both businessmen from New York city (actually Brooklyn) wanted to purchase the ball team and relocate the team BACK TO Brooklyn! I'm unable to find their last names, but love for other wikipedians to help out.

The news sent a wave of shock for both Los Angeles and New York baseball fans, at the time the Yankees won their first world series (1996) in 18 years...and the Angels' took the name Anaheim (1997-2005). The L.A. area was reeling the loss of two NFL teams, the Raiders back to Oakland and the Rams to St. Louis.

However, the brothers bought only shares, not the whole team. From the wiki article may explained what happened: <<Nearly a half-century of unusual stability (only two managers 1954-96, owned by a single family 1950-98) finally came to an end. In 1998, the O'Malley family sold the Dodgers to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, owner of the Fox network and 20th Century Fox.>>

The new owners (Rupert Murdoch) agreed to keep the Dodgers in L.A. due to the high fan loyalty in southern Cal., although you have old-time Brooklynites whom are Dodger fans by "heart", except the Mets' presence filled the void of National League in New York since they first played in 1962, but aren't based in the borough whom never took the Dodgers for granted.

In the 2000's, the L.A. city economy has bounced back after the recession (1990-96), riots (May 1992) and improved civic pride convinced the L.A. Dodgers this is their permanent home. I'm sure the Dodgers' departure from Brooklyn was very tragic to nearly destroyed the borough economy, beginning in the 1960s to worsened in the 1970s and 80s...and finally revived to its' former status in the 1990s.

In the 2000 world series, the Mets/Yankees match revived the rumor of the Dodgers' wish to step back to the New York area, but the terrorist attacks on 9/11 (2001) brought an end to any possibility of a new major league ballpark in the borough. But the New York Mets have territorial rights to Brooklyn and long discussed plans for a new ball park after their lease of Shea Stadium expires in 2010.

Also to note the Brooklyn Cyclones minor league team (a New York Mets class A affiliate of the New York/Penn. League) debuted in 1998 in a new ball park outside of Coney Island. Later, the Queens Kings in 2000 (now the Staten Island Yankees since 2001) reduced the ability for New York city to again have a third major league baseball team they had 50 years ago.

Would the L.A. Dodgers return to Brooklyn after half a century? I don't think so. + Mike D 26 04:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.Djgranados 08:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BRO-D 6150.png

Image:BRO-D 6150.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BRO-D 682.png

Image:BRO-D 682.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:1955 next year.jpg

Image:1955 next year.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Los.png

Image:Los.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Section

The "Celebrity Fans" section is unnecessary. What would be more interesting would be a list of records, such as

First paid admission game (1860s)

One of the first two enclosed baseball ground

First baseball team to win championships in different leagues in consecutive years (1890)

First live radio broadcast (1939) ? Is this correct?

First TV broadcast (1939)

First use of batting helmets (1941)

First racial integration (1947)

First West Coast team (1958)

First team to attract more than 3 mn in one year (1978)

First MLB team to open an office in Asia (1998)

First team to start a Japanese, Korean or Taiwanese player

Largest home-opener crowd (78,762, 1958)

Largest attendence (93,103, 1959)

Largest attendence (115,300, 2008)

Only team to win without a hit (2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DOR (HK) (talk • contribs) 06:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DOR (HK) (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree about the celebrity fans section.. just cause some celebrity likes the team isn't notable at all.. I'd like to get rid of that section entirely. Spanneraol (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Removed! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that a "celebrity fans" section is unnecessary. None of the above listed information in itself makes the article any better. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.201.86 (talk • contribs) 22:45, January 11, 2009

For the record, I did not comment on the "list of records" above. However, IMHO, a "celebrity fans" section would be irrelevant. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Los Angeles Dodgers

This page is good, but far too long. Consider moving the content of this page to the above linked (but not yet existing) page. Then summarize the sections for this page. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dknights411 (talk • contribs) 10:35, June 27, 2007

Brooklyn Dodgers Split?

I would volunteer to propse a logical solution to this article, which I'll agree is WAY too long. How about a split for the Brooklyn Dodgers? I think that a seperate Brooklyn Dodgers article with appropriate linking would not only give proper credit to an important part of the franchise's own history, but will also help with the fact that this article is too long. Dknights411 (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if the article is to be split because of its size, then it should go along those lines. The Los Angeles Dodgers have been in existence for half a century now. I'm surprised to see Brooklyn Dodgers be a redirect to Los Angeles Dodgers; though they are the same team, the traditions associated with Ebbets Field and Dodger Stadium are as different as... as New York and L.A.. Mandsford (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the two should be split at the Brookly/Los Angeles level with the Brookly Dodgers link embedded in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. There are a world of differences between the two teams, they are from two different eras and are truly different teams in one franchise.Terry Chapman (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Terry, I've cut the Brooklyn info from the LA Dodgers page (someone with better editing skills can maybe tidy up the info box) It should be relocated to a new Brooklyn Dodgers page. Haldraper (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I put it back. You can't just do that unilaterally. And the claim that they are not the same team is ludicrous. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Brooklyn era should be a separate page. --Nricardo (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The club itself doesn't do that. Look at their retired numbers, for example. They straddle the cities. What are you going to do, split them down the middle? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is the length of the article. The other is that despite being the same franchise, the essence of the team changed with its cross-country move. L.A. ain't got that Brooklyn 'tude.--Nricardo (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a separate history article is needed. But there is so much info there that reinforces the continuity of the franchise. How do you break it apart without duplicating a lot of stuff from one article to the other? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Omaha Dodgers logo.png

The image Image:Omaha Dodgers logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whole section on just the 2009 season???

Does anyane else think that this stinks of recentism? Considering that the entire season already is covered in ist own article, that section places too much undue weight on a single season of baseball. I would have already deleted the section, but I wanted to get others take on the subject.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information should be merged into the 2009 Los Angeles Dodgers season page. Spanneraol (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just hope that if I delete the section, I won't take too much flak for it.Jojhutton (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

confused identifications

"Chin-Feng Chen, Chan Ho Park (pictured) and Hideo Nomo were the first Korean and Taiwanese players (respectively) to play in the MLB. Nomo was the second Japanese player, with the rival San Francisco Giants having fielded the first Japanese player, Masanori Murakami" Something got turned around there. Surely Chen is the Taiwanese, and Park the Korean? Needs rewriting.74.65.209.146 (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you from doing it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

This edit request to Los Angeles Dodgers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'd like to add this line to the "Radio & Television" section:

The Dodgers also broadcast on local radio in Korean. The Korean-language radio flagship station is KMPC. Fkeldh (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2021

This edit request to Los Angeles Dodgers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

110.150.51.77 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added an asterisk to the 2020 Championship, Please remove this

Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021

This edit request to Los Angeles Dodgers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add requested citation under "Fan support" section, here is the wikitext for the citation: Waldstein, David (2017-10-25). "With a Crowd of Diverse Faces, Dodger Stadium Stands Out". The New York Times. The New York Times. Retrieved 2021-12-31. Thejellybeing (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpddg ^(talk) 05:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]