Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:44, 25 December 2015

Philadelphia Phillies received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Baseball: Phillies High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Philadelphia Phillies (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philadelphia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Rivalries and the lede

Discussion of rivalries, which may change over time and may be perceived as opinion, do not belong in the lede. I removed these sentences; perhaps someone wants to place them elsewhere in the article.Wkharrisjr (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I heartily disagree with this change. It should have been discussed first. The rivalry between the Phillies and the Mets is perhaps one of the biggest elements of the team's recent history and should be discussed in the article and mentioned in the lead. The others, which are added by an IP, are a POV push that's been discussed and discarded by WP:BASEBALL. Only rivalries that have their own articles should be mentioned and discussed in articles or in navboxes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My only concern is the ebb and flow of such rivalries. As the sentence states, the rivaly "has been an issue of contention within the division in recent seasons". Will this always be the case? Why then the qualifier "in recent seasons"? While it is worth noting the rivalry in the article, I'm not sure it is important enough to be placed in the lede.Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The qualifier is because the rivalry has become more intense recently than it was in the Mets' early history. The article explains all of that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section on the rivalry to this article, with a link to the main article, as it should have been done before (my fault for not catching it). Now the statement in the lead is also referenced later in the article, and it gives the reader somewhere to go. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My concern is not with the rivaly per se but about the philosopy of the time frames of articles. Should article be a cold, "looking back" voice like a true encyclopedia or is it OK to assume that articles will be updated when current infomration changes? Unfortunatley, these updates don't always happen. I know I've stumbled across many unmaintained articles that say things like "so-and-so is planned to start in 2008". Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that concern, but I'm not going anywhere, and I do most of the updating to this article. Misplaced Pages is not paper, and so things do change as information is updated and becomes newly available. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, just make sure you don't get hit by an errent hot dog from the Phanatic's Hot Dog Gun! Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the hot dog gun... now I want a Kunzler hot dog on a Stroehman roll... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Roy Halladay and Recent History

This sentence just doesn't sound right:

On December 16, 2009, they acquired starting pitcher Roy Halladay, who pitched a perfect game against the Florida Marlins in his first season as a Phillie, from the Toronto Blue Jays, and traded Cliff Lee to the Seattle Mariners for three prospects.

Mentioning the perfect game, which occurred six months after the trade, seems out of place in this sentence. I suggested putting the feat in another paragraph, but that was reverted. Any ideas to make the flow paragraph better?Wkharrisjr (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

The assertion that it was the first time a designated hitter was used in a NL park for regular season is incorrect. The Indians played a home game at Milwaukee two years prior due to snow storms, that was the first instance of the DH used in a NL park for Regular season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.107.225 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Fan support" eidts

From comments on the reverts of my edits, it sounds like this topic was discussed previously to my reading these pages. I apologize for editing out comments that were previously discussed. The intent of my edits was to try to make the section read less disjointedly and to remove trivial matter. The Phillies had gimmicks to attract fans? which teams in the 1970's and 1980's didn't? The "Hot Pants Patrol" and "Philadelphia Phil and Phyliis" were introduced as marketing tools when the Vet opened, but were qucikly de-emphasized and eventually abandoned. Are these trivial events worth mentioning in an encyclopedic article? If there are to be kept, I think the section needs to be rewritten and other promotions to attract fans should be included- how about the infamous Kiteman or Karl Walenda's walk across the top of the stadium? I think those events are as much part of Phillies lore as Phil and Phylis.

Likewise the section about the ruliness of the Phillies fans needs serious editing- definitley divided into sections about the fans relationship to the home team but also its reactions to opposing players. Both subjects are worthy of expansion and referencing.Wkharrisjr (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nationality of Players

Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Misplaced Pages should probably be updated to reflect that. If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons. I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page. However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus on the talk page for each team. yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Mets-Phillies Rivalry redux

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

Well, the fact that Misplaced Pages's article on the rivalry is a GA heartily supports the fact that the rivalry exists; that being said, this is still one of the few holdovers left from the original article before its overhaul. I'd support rewording rather than removal, as long as concurrent changes are made in the main rivalry article. — KV5 • Talk • 22:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wkharrisjr, I strongly agree that the sentence be kept. Because the article on the rivalry is a GA and the rivalry exists and it's there, yes, the sentence will be kept. At both New York Mets and Major League Baseball rivalries articles, I have kept the sentence in the section that discusses the rivalry. Also know that throughout Mets' franchise history, the Mets and the Phillies have always been together, even if the two teams are not equally good at the same time. There have been times the Phillies tried to play spoiler on the Mets (for example, when the Mets won the 1999 National League Wild Card) and vice-versa (for example, in 2005, when the Mets' late season surge helped them eliminate teams from playoff contention.). Also, the two teams have always tried to play tough against each other due to the regional proximity. – SNIyer12, (talk), 17:02 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, but I don't know what a "GA" is. I also don't see a link, so could someone direct me to the information? Thanks. Next, I don't see how you can reword the sentence and yet keep the central assertion; namely, that the Phillies and Mets have met frequently in the playoffs. That's either a true statement or it's not. As far as I can see, 2007 and 2008 were the only years they actually had close playoff races. (If they're are more, please correct me.) Finally, SNlyer12: I don't think your "spoiler argument" holds up only half the time. The Phillies didn't play spoiler in 1999, as the Mets won the division. In 2005 you are correct, though.Ultimahero (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, first, a GA is a good article, meaning that that article has passed the GA review process. The sentence does not claim that the teams have met frequently in the playoffs. It says "playoff races", which means, more likely than not, that one of those teams (or both) will not/did not make the postseason. The 2007 and 2008 races were the closest, and SNIyer is right in his claims of one team playing spoiler on the other, as indicated in the rivalry article. — KV5 • Talk • 11:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out what a GA is. And you're right, it doesn't say that the two teams met in the playoffs, but rather had frequent playoff races. I simply misspoke (or mistyped, I guess). As far as having "close playoff races", I only see 2007 and 2008. I went through the Mets history season by season finishes and those are the only close finishes that I see. As far as I can tell it's not really a matter of these two seasons being the closest; those are literally the only two out there. The two teams have only finished 1st and 2nd 2 other times in their histories: 1986, when the Mets finished 21.5 ahead of the Phillies, and 2006, when the Mets finished 12 games ahead of the Phillies. Are those really close playoff races if they finish with a double digit number of games between them? I don't think so. (If someone would like to submit another year as being close I'm more than happy to hear it, of course.)

I agreed with SNlyer about the "spoiler argument" in one exmaple, 2005. He was right, the Phillies were eliminated by the Mets. However, he is incorrect about 1999, as the Mets won the Wild Card. So how did the Phillies play spoilers? They may have tried, but so what? That means nothing if they don't succeed. So I don't see how they've "met frequently" in playoff races. I think that needs to be taken out as it is not accurate.Ultimahero (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Then change it to "met recently" instead of "met frequently", if you think it's necessary. Like I said above, I'd support re-wording rather than removal, but if you do make the change, ensure that you change it here, in List of Major League Baseball rivalries, and in the main rivalry article. — KV5 • Talk • 11:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'm fine with rewording it. It's what I perceive to be a false assertion that I dislike. So this sounds like a reasonable solution to me.Ultimahero (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:RaulIbanez.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:RaulIbanez.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Misplaced Pages, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Phillies

The Philadelphia Phillies had the name of the Philadelphia Blue Jays for a year or two in the 1940's. At that time the Chicago Cubs were still the Cubs. I am a Phillies Fan and was a Blue Jays fan then.Jackmcg17055 (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As noted in the article, the Blue Jays name was never officially adopted. It was suggested by the team, and the players wore a blue jay patch on the sleeve of their uniforms, but the name of the team always officially remained Phillies, and the Blue Jay moniker was dropped after objections from Johns Hopkins University. — KV5 • Talk • 00:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 CY young and regular season

Based on the remarkable and historic season that the Philadelphia Phillies are having (2011), who is the better pitcher and who is more likely to win the NL CY: Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee? Also, who believes the Phils will break their regular season record in 2011? Matthew.sniscak (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This isnt really a forum for general discussion... but I'm hoping for Clayton Kershaw to win it.. he has better #s than those two this season and heck.. they already have theres. Spanneraol (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

For the section on team uniforms, batting practice should be its own separate category. It causes confusion and looks sloppy and lazy. (Dwade11 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

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

Droughts

You have to be careful about how to characterize their championship drought. They had already been in the league for 20 years before 1903, and had never won a league championship, and obviously not any of the 1880s version of the World Series. By the time of the 1915 league pennant, it was their 33rd year of existence, but winning the league no longer meant you were the major league champion. So their "ultimate championship" drought can be considered as 97 just as well as 77. In the case of the Red Sox (85) and the White Sox (87), those were the number of championless years between World Series titles. The Phils didn't win a Series at all until their 98th season. The Cubs, of course haven't won one in 114 years now. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080915115741/http://www.alsphiladelphia.org:80/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=183 to http://www.alsphiladelphia.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=183

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

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

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

Cheers. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

section titles

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

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

I think the heading "Another Chance For Glory and Returning to The Bottom" should be reworded to be less flowery. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To: Thealfredprice; Cc: Muboshgu and EricEnfermero:  You added dates to the subheads, which was good, and I thanked you for it (see above). But you capitalized them as if they were book titles, which was bad, and I told you why (see above).

I brought them into conformance with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Capital letters (see above)... and you edited them back to caps. Did you not see above at the time? Did you just not care? That was a step into edit warring.

Now EricEnfermero has reverted your caps again, referencing Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Section headings, which is the full version of the policy that my link gives a shortened version of. I hope you will not try to impose your preferred style over Misplaced Pages's established style again. That would be flat-out edit warring and a Bad Thing. --Thnidu (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Different blue cap

@Andrewsnyder26345: Your edit to § ‎Controversial uniform changes doesn't quite make sense. Originally the sentence was

A different blue cap was introduced in 2008 as part of the alternate home uniform for day games, a throwback to the late 1940s.

You changed the date expression to "the late 1969's". Did you mean "1969", "the late Sixties", or what? Please fix it and provide a reference for it.

I see that this is your first edit. If you have a reference but aren't sure how to cite it, I'll be glad to help. Probably the simplest way for you to reach me is to put a message on my Talk page, using the "Add new section" tab at the top. --Thnidu (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

2013-present: Recent years

@RA0808: In Philadelphia Phillies § 2013-present: Recent years you've reverted 360mlgnoscoper420's edit. As far as I can see, this addition —

In 2015 Sandberg resigned as manager and bench coach Pete Mackanin was brought in as interim manager. Also in 2015 general manager Ruben Amaro JR. was fired and Andy McPhale was brought in as the interim GM.

— is perfectly valid. You gave no edit summary, and there's no obvious reason in the edit itself.

I see that this user has just been indefinitely blocked by Materialscientist as a vandalism-only account, with just four contributions, two yesterday and two today. The first ("yo wassup") and second (" aed") were certainly just graffiti, which we count as vandalism here, though they were not otherwise harmful (unlike, say, massive deletions, or insertions of hate propaganda). But this one, the third looks reasonable and useful, and the fourth, in Poly(methyl methacrylate) (aka Acrylic glass and 27 other redirects)—

It is fairly common

—while minor and arguably redundant with "often used" in the same paragraph, seems by itself to deserve WP:GOODFAITH.

I can easily envision a new user (such as this one), unfamiliar with our policies and customs, putting a couple of minor scrawls on our walls, then settling in to do some useful work. Instead of banning this user indefinitely, I think we should assume good faith on a somewhat larger scale, end the ban, and invite them back, explaining just what's wrong with those "scrawls on the wall". Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: I reverted the edit, without issuing a warning, because it didn't cite any source and it added what seemed to be personal opinion ("This was a little less than a week after Hamels pitched a no hitter against the Cubs. A great parting gift for Phillies fans to remind him by"). RA0808 _contribs 16:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@RA0808: Makes sense, but an edit summary by you would have been helpful, to explain and to teach a novice editor instead of brushing them off. And is there any problem with the other paragraph that a cn tag wouldn't cover? --Thnidu (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Yes, in hindsight I should have included an edit summary when I did the revert. Feel free to restore the other content with a cn tag. RA0808 _contribs 16:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@RA0808:  Done Also the non-POV content of the Hamels deal paragraph. --Thnidu (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

2008 World Series Champions

I am undoing Jordandlee's reversion of my copyedits in this section. I noted "C/e" in my edit memo; he reverted with no explanation.

Instead of discussing "openly" here on the article talk page, I thought it would be considerate to start on his talk page instead. There I wrote:

I copyedited a couple of sentences in Philadelphia Phillies, taking out some redundancy and other wordiness, and documented the reason in the edit comment with the abbreviation "C/e". I introduced no "grammar mistakes or typos", yet you reverted my edit with no explanation. What were your reasons, please? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

In reply, he wrote on my talk page:

Please pay attention to your edits. Your contributions to the Phillies' page were very careless. Also, there was no need to bring other people into our most recent disagreement. Also, I undid your other edits because, they did, indeed, have many grammar mistakes. Jordandlee (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

1980 World Series

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

@Jordandlee and Jorduf: There's your first mistake.

Misplaced Pages editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed. (Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry)

You're not playing by the rules. You joined this community less than two months ago and are clearly massively unaware of its rules and customs, but you're acting as though everything you're doing is right and proper. Sir Joseph tried to tell you what you were doing wrong, but you apparently ignored him. You've been posting content without citing the sources, which goes flat against one of Misplaced Pages's basic principles.

This is why people keep undoing your revisions. You can learn how to do it right. You can ask for help at the Help Desk; don't hesitate.

Regards, Thnidu (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

1. User_talk:Jordandlee#December 2015_1
2. User_talk:Jordandlee#December_2015_2
3. Misplaced Pages:Your_first_article#Gathering_references
4. Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources

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

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Baseball articles
• High-importance Baseball articles
• B-Class Philadelphia Phillies articles
• Top-importance Philadelphia Phillies articles
• Philadelphia Phillies articles
• WikiProject Baseball articles
• B-Class Philadelphia articles
• High-importance Philadelphia articles
• B-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles