Talk:Bleacher Creatures

Bias
This article seems to violate the Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View. I don't see why there are immature snippets about how another town "sucks". I propose that these references get removed. In addition, the statements are false since Boston won the World Series this year. Perhaps they were added because Yankee fans were upset that they lost in the first round of this year's playoffs and not because the statements have merit. I'll make the edits if I don't see any contrary comments. Mc roach 14:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. The article isn't saying that Boston sucks, the article is saying that the Bleacher Creatures chant "Boston sucks".  Which they do, even when Boston is better than the Yanks.  This article is (when it hasn't just been vandalized) an accurate depiction of the Bleacher Creatures.  Are the Creatures immature idiots?  That's for readers to decide, this article just describes them.  Wasted Time R 14:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To be clear, including the text "Boston sucks" is trolling. While this may be fine for a Yankee fanboi website, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. If the chant were "A-Rod is gay!" (which it might be in 2008 since he opted out of his contract), would you still want to include it in the article? I think not. Mc roach 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would include it, because it would further demonstrate what homophobic jerks the Bleacher Creatures often are. Again, this article isn't saying anything about the Red Sox, just about Yankee fan behavior regarding the Red Sox.  Two different things.  Wasted Time R 16:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The text also seems to violate Wikipedia policy on personal attacks and profanity. Mc roach 18:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is about the Bleacher Creatures, not Mc Roach's personal feelings about them. They are important enough to have 2 separate books devoted to them so they are noteworthy enough to have an article.  Even though they are crude, detailing their antics is completely allowed but not to a gratuitous level.  You show a poor, poor understanding of WP policies MC.  Do not insert the POV tag again.  Baegis 19:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relax, Baegis. I did not suggest that the Bleacher Creatures are not noteworthy enough to have an article. The issue is that the article says that "Boston sucks" several times and serves no purpose other than flamebait. The neutral point of view issue is that these references were added by someone who apparently hates the Boston Red Sox enough to single them out. That is bias. Furthermore, please refrain from Personal Attacks. Also, in the interest of constructive dialogue, I will refrain from adding the POV tag. Mc roach 00:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Mc roach, you still don't get it. The article doesn't say that Boston sucks nor does the article single out the Red Sox.  It's the Bleacher Creatures that say that Boston sucks and that single out the Red Sox.  Your idea of a neutral article would be to say that the Bleacher Creatures have the same attitude towards the Kansas City Royals that they do towards the Red Sox, and that just ain't so.  I wrote bits of this article and added one of the pictures and I dislike the Yankees intensely and am happy that the Red Sox won the series.  But it's a simple fact that the Creatures hate the Red Sox, and the article needs to describe that.  Wasted Time R 01:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WTR, I looked back at the article history, after you got done with it. I much prefer that version. I am thinking that the current article could be reconfigured to describe the hatred, without including text that is inflammatory. To be honest, I think that if the article continues to say "Boston sucks", it will provoke more vandalism. Mc roach 01:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this article is about a specific fan group. It is important to note their cheers. Just because you do not like them is not enough to cause the article to change. If the Red Sox, of whom you are surely a fan, have such a group of fans, they could have the same things on their page. Simply put, there is deep seated animosity between these two clubs and their fans reflect that. Baegis 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand you guys' viewpoint. I still disagree, but will not make any edits to the article. What I ask is that this discussion topic stays up on this page for a while to see if others weigh in. Cheers! Mc roach 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
I think that this article is self-promoting and lacks a neutral point of view. This was obviously written by a member of the "Bleacher Creatures" and has no real value to Wikipedia. Duttysean 24 October 2008

I think this article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.113.127 (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has many authors, some creatures, some fans, some non-fans. It's already survived deletion attempts.  There are a lot of third-party sources that mention the creatures, so deletion is unlikely to be successful.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for feedback
Hey, this is in response to the request for feedback left at WP:RfF about a week ago. Sorry there wasn't an earlier response; the page needs far more traffic than it gets.

The article itself is interesting and fairly easy to read. It's obvious that people have been putting some work into it. The main issues that need to be cleaned up are formatting, organization and some NPOV problems.

I think that the lead should be reformatted, possibly rewritten. The second paragraph is more the sort of thing that would go in the article than in the lead, and could easily be replaced with a sentence or two stating that the Bleacher Creatures are hostile to fans of other teams. A more comprehensive summary of the article would be nice. I also think that a brief comment on how the name was earned would fit nicely in the lead. It's covered in the History, but it would work well in both places.

Discussion of various chants dominate the article. They're obviously a very important to the group, but I think they should probably be confined to the "chants and songs" section. Make sure that everything in any section actually belongs in that section. There are some bits in History that belong in Chants and Songs, and vice versa.

The chants that are listed should be standardized in their format. For example, if you say that the Creatures all shout Melky's name, I don't think that it is necessary to have the (ie: "MEL-KY! MEL-KY! MEL-KY!") there. Hopefully readers can figure this out for themselves.

Some of the comments need to be updated. In History, the article states that the Creatures are no longer allowed to shout "Box seats suck!" However, in Chants and Songs, it lists this as being continued.

The sections pertaining to the police could be phrased in a more NPOV manner.

Finally, I think that a Controversies section could be useful. I'm not familiar with the group, but they seem very polarizing.

Hopefully this was helpful; I'm sorry that it's so long and that it took so long to get to you guys. If you have any questions, I'm going to be watching this page, so I'd be happy to clarify. (Or, of course, you can ask me on my Talk page.) AnEmptyCageGirl (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips and comments; they are very helpful. I'll try and incorporate as many changes as I can with your suggestions. --Sportskido8 (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Nom
I nominated this article for GA consideration. If it's not ready yet, I'll make the necessary changes in the review. --Sportskido8 (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It will probably be quick-failed for lack of sourcing and citation. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it's not a terribly big article, but I guess it could use a couple more. Shouldn't be quick failed though. --Sportskido8 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not even on a real topic I think it should be positioned for deletion. (RedSoxFanEB (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Neutral Point Of View
I feel as though this article violated Wikipedia's TOS based on neutrality, I feel as though indivduals of these "Bleacher Creatures" wrote this article just to have a wikipedia article, it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedSoxFanEB (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed over and over again...the Creatures are a notable group in many major newspaper articles and various other publications, and there's also a book written about them. They deserve their own article. Also, can you please point out where the article is not neutral? Sportskido8 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg listed for deletion
A file used in this article, File:Bleedingpinstripes.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the  to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --SkotyWATC 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bleacher Creatures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204221410/http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2012/08/14/36661052/bleacher-creatures-honor-memory-of-founding-member to http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2012/08/14/36661052/bleacher-creatures-honor-memory-of-founding-member
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416071935/http://www.heckledepot.com/hallfame.shtml to http://www.heckledepot.com/hallfame.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417040737/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2002/04/06/2002-04-06_creature_comforts_suit_cone.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2002/04/06/2002-04-06_creature_comforts_suit_cone.html
 * Added tag to http://www.baldvinny.com/section203.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)