Talk:Boston Red Sox/Archive 2

Manny
This may not be a problem for long, if Manny is traded, but... Are the flags by the players names indicating the country they belong to, or the country they were born in? Ever since 2004, Manny has been an American citizen, so should the flag be changed from a Dominican Republic flag to an American one? --Thebends 00:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe Manny has dual citizenship between the Dominican Republic and the US. 146.115.74.116 03:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok... so should there be two flags in that case? --Thebends 03:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe this question has already been answered on Talk:Boston Red Sox roster. Apparently the flags represent country of origon, not nationality (which usually are one in the same). I think a small header of the top of the roster would prevent any confusion of casual readers of the page. I am going to look into what is on the WikiProject Baseball. Assawyer 03:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Designated Hitter
Shouldn't Ortiz be listed as an infielder on the 40 man roster? I didn't think there was any such thing as a DH roster spot, its just a line-up designation.

At first I thought you were crazy, but then I checked, and I didnt see and DH listed on the other AL teams. So I think he probably should be. (Opes 00:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC))
 * I reverted the DH to infielder header change to reflect how the Red Sox officially list their roster. You are correct that the DH is a line-up designation under MLB Rule 6.10, but I believe that it is still a roster spot as referenced in designated hitter.  I suspect the reason most teams do not have a DH spot on their roster is because the rule is not manditory to have a DH. I do not think that we should change one teams official roster based on how other teams list their roster.  Assawyer 01:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ehh. Ok. Thats justifable. (Opes 01:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Also, I don't know how many teams' rosters you viewed, but there are nine players that are listed on the league's website with the DH designation.  Seven of those belonging to the follow teams (links go to rosters): Seattle Mariners, Boston Red Sox, Detroit Tigers (hasn't been receintly updated), Texas Rangers, Minnesota Twins and the Cleveland Indians.  The remaining two players listed by the MLB as DH are: Erubiel Durazo, John Jaha.

Ugh
This infobox needs major shrinking. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 05:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Greatest Rivalry
The opening line read something to the effect that the Yankee/Sox rivalry is the greatest and most intense rivalry in [b]sport[/b].

I changed it to Baseball, as I can think of around ten sporting rivalries that are far, far more intense and have a lot more history than the Sox/Yankees.

Rangers/Celtic in Scotland's Premier League "soccer" is a rivalry based in religion that has been going since the 1800's, and regularly leads to violence.

River Plater/Boca Juniors in Argentina is even hotter!

Since the quotation has no citation, it can't be left there, especially since it is arguably hyperbole.

Well, since you mentioned two rivalries outside of the United States, one can still make a very valid arguement that the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry is the greatest in professional American sports. It might be a stretch to call it the greatest in all American sports, since the collegiate rivalries of Harvard/Yale (football), Army/Navy (football), Ohio State/Michigan (football), North Carolina/Duke (basketball) can stake claim in that title.

DaDoc540 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which ESPN segment should we cite. Anything dubbed the greatest is without question subjective and cannot be objectified. How can one objectify the greatest rivalry, you can't. However can clearly confirm that it has been said about that rivalry. Can you make the case for others of course, have people said it about this rivalry yes. Have famous important sports figures said it, answer again is yes. --Kev62nesl 05:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How many MLB rivalries in the last sixty years, post-WWII? Yankees-Red Sox, Dodgers-Giants, Cubs-Cardinals.  Has anyone called any other the greatest?  Suppose not.  That is three in recent MLB history.  What should Wikipedia say about greatest rivalries if MLB (objectively) has three in the last few generations?  --P64 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Duquette Info
I found an error in the section that talks about Dan Duquette. The article gives him credit for developing the minor league system and cites Nomar Garciaparra and Trot Nixon as examples of this. Actually, Trot Nixon was drafted by previous GM Lou Gorman and his name should not be listed here.

I am going to edit the page and remove it. I will replace Nixon with two good players that Duquette did actually draft - Carl Pavano and David Eckstein.

Also, give Duquette his due and list Kevin Youkilis in with those players as well.

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:. There are two key reasons: Other editors at other pages seem to agree. --mtz206 (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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" admits the inherent problem that if an update is missed (which is a reasonable assumption), the information would immediately be inaccurate.

Just a note re: Duquette and Clemens
Because I'm sure someone will notice my edit and not get it...

Dan Duquette never said that Roger Clemens was "in the twilight of his career." His statement was that Red Sox management wanted to keep Clemens in a Boston uniform "during the twilight of his career," with the full implication of the statement in context indicating that to be sometime in the future. This is consistent with what is written elsewhere in Wikipedia (see Roger Clemens for instance), and is verifiable in the archives of the Boston Herald.

I have restructured the sentence regarding this statement to be factual and convey its controversial nature. -- Zakath 08:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Massive Cleanup
Just a little notice, I've done and will keep doing some massive cleanup on this article. If you want to help, jump right in. :) Yank  sox  16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm all for it...just try to lean towards brevity. I think this article is way, way, way too long. Fumblebruschi 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, please feel free to look over my edits, and see how it is. Yank  sox  03:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering the way the rest of the article is structured, at some point the last several years should be merged into something like a "current era" heading. If entire decades can be summed up in a single subsection, there probably doesn't need to be lengthy bits about every single one of the last few seasons. Make sense? Zakath


 * (After reworking the Nickname section) Yes, way too big.
 * One or two chunks of subject matter should be shipped out to other articles. Maybe everything on the 2006 team to one article, maybe all roster data to one article. Those are two extremely-overlapping suggestions that will ship out one chunk of subject matter. Of course, such strategies should be cover all MLB or all big-time team sports. To ship out a long history article, leaving only a short summary here, should or should not be implemented much more generally: for Astronomy or Copenhagen one might do the same export when the main article gets too big. --P64 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanish
Why is the Spanish translation of the team's name relevant?

It's relevant, if only because so many members of the team have hispanic origins.--72.10.101.109 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise with Las Medias Blancas, the name used by Spanish-speakers for the Chicago White Sox. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Roster
Can anyone confirm that the Red Sox have indeed aquired Javy Lopez from Baltimore? I saw it on ESPN.--Tigersfan1992 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not yet, still just "in the works" DrunkenSmurf 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Notes (Pilgrims), See also, . ..
What is the preferred order for Notes, See also, External links, References --in particular where, as here, there is a substantial footnote? Nothing looks right.

Information should probably be rearranged between Notes (newly relegated) and the Nickname section, Pilgrims? subsection. Bill Nowlin and some recent SABR publications were one third of Nickname, with too much detail. That material might be rewritten as a good paragraph focusing on 1901-1907 nicknames, and I hinted that by making subsections, but I didn't do the work. Instead I simply relegated to Notes the part about his 2006 followup article, which moderated his previous finding. --P64 01:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Curse of the Crow
August 2nd, 2006 a crow landed and ran the bases in Fenway park. Since then the team has tanked.

A new curse is upon the Sox, the curse of the crow!

Picture of the Crow

"In Greek superstition crows are seen as a bad omen, often foretelling death." -- OldSuperstitions.com


 * That's not a crow, it's a blackbird. Fumblebruschi 18:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only person who thinks this is a pretty ridiculous discussion to be having?--72.10.101.109 13:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Better description of 2004 late season turnaround
In 2004 the Sox were between 6 and 12 games over .500 from game 27 through game 110. Then they went on a 20-2 tear. This should be mentioned, and if someone can figure out the difference in the wild card standings this tear made, that info should be added as well.

GA Box
Can someone please get that GA box at h top of he article to align to the right? I never figured out how. Thanks, aido2002 03:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I created a template to go at the bottom of all Red Sox-related pages. But as of now, the links it has are not really great. So, if anyone can help improve the template, that would be really helpful. Don't put it on any pages, yet, because I want to make sure it's great before it is put anywhere. Thanks, aido2002 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Famous Fans?
How does this matter at all? Can we get a consensus to remove this section entirely? Lionelxhutz 23:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

-I agree. Many entries are flawed.

I Agree too. A while back I tried to add citations but even with them the section seems irrelevant. Doc502 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's remove it. Doesn't help the article at all. -- No Guru 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not many votes, but it is unanimous. I just removed the section. Doc502 20:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Protecting the page?
There's been something like 20 instances of vandalism on this page in the past week. Can the page be protected? Doc502 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of vandalism to this article but in my mind it is being managed. If the vandalism comes fast and furious and is difficult to stay on top of then I would semi-protect it. In any event you can request protection for a page at Requests for page protection -- No Guru 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nickname section
I hope that this doesn't come across too strongly against the person that wrote the majority of the section, but the Nickname section needs some serious work. The structure of the information that is there is confusing, unrefrenced, and most of it is only marginally related to the topic of the Red Sox name in my opinion. The other problem is that this section ought to be moved to become a part of the History section. As it is it's sitting on it own shoehorned in between "individual player-introduction music", and "Retired numbers", and is a bit lost. The structure of the overall page is confusing right now, and this section is one of the reasons why.

In my opinion this section should be reduced to a deacently sized paragraph of referenced materiel. Two short sub sections should have a link to Boston Pilgrims and Boston Americans as the respective main articles for each section.

I started looking at this as I was looking into editing the 1903 World Series article. Obviously, the Boston Pilgrims/Americans nickname problem is connected to the 1903 series. I was about to be bold and begin fixing this myself, but as I read the articles and looked at the problem itself I find myself realising what a large change this is. I am not a Red Sox fan, or even a particular expert at Red Sox history so the last thing I want to do is start an edit controversy on this page. The article needs work to fit into the encyclopedia, though. As it is, if you read/edit other parts of Wikipedia and come here this article as it stands is obviously not like the rest of the encyclopedia. --Ohms law 10:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)