Talk:Boston Red Sox/Archive 3

GA Failed
I failed this because of no refs, long history section, cleanup tag since august, fair use issues, etc, this article has so many problems. Jaranda wat's sup 19:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New York Times Company
Why is there no mention in this article that The New York Times Company, which owns The Boston Globe as well as obviously The New York Times is an owner of the team? It seems pretty relevant to me that the biggest home town newspaper of the team as well as the biggest home town news paper of the team's biggest rival are owned by the same company that owns the team. &mdash; Linnwood 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

what happened
What happened, all the information is gone

Request for Protection
I put in a requrest to have this page semi-protected, but it was denied.

However, I have to respectfully disagree with this decision. If you look at the history for this page, nearly every single change of the last 250+ edits is either vandalism or a revision. Does anyone else think this is a little ridiculous? Zomic_13 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is now semi-protected. Thank you. Zomic_13 17:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

sprotected vs. sprotected2
I reverted the change to sprotected2 back to sprotected. Due to the nature of the topic it may attract new anon editors (and it looks like there are some decent anon edits amongst the vandalism) and I think we need to keep the protected nature of the page very apparent even at the price of aesthetics. Ripe 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit request
Could someone add the little box to this article that I've added to all the other baseball articles: It should look like this: An example of how I did this elsewhere:  64.178.96.168 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe you could get the one at 64.178.96.168 19:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)to rap up this article the red sox are the worst team in history they suck bad and never be a red sox fan

The editing suggested just below was done on May 15, 2007. Previously, I saw this: On October 2, 1972, they also lost the second to last game of the year to the Tigers, 3-1, when Luis Aparicio fell rounding third after Yastremski hit a triple in the third inning, Aparicio tried to scamper back to third but this created an out as Yastremski was already on third.}} I changed it to this (changes explained just after the suggested new rendering):}} On October 2, 1972, they also lost the second to last game of the year to the Tigers, 4-1, when Luis Aparicio fell rounding third after Yastremski hit an apparent triple in the third inning; Aparicio tried to scamper back to third but this created an out as Yastremski was already on third.}} CHANGES (I checked Retrosheet site regarding the game): Score was 4-1, not 3-1; I changed "a triple" to "an apparent triple" because Yastrzemski ended up being credited with only a double; comma just after "third inning" changed to semicolon.

SUGGESTION: I suggest a clarification - stating the Red Sox lead in 2007 in road attendance is misleading because of the large number of games the Yankees and Red Sox play against each other. Invariably sell-outs, the smaller capacity of Fenway works to lower the Yankees' average road numbers while the larger capacity of Yankee stadium inflates the Red Sox' road numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.130.88 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

New Page Protect Request
I just requested that this page be semi-protected again,as IP vandalism has started to pick up since the old protection expired. Black Harry (T|C) 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Coach succession boxes
If anyone is interested I've added succession boxes to Brad Mills, John Farrell (baseball, and Dave Magadan's oages, as well as their past few predecesors. If anyone wants to make these go back further, it would be great.Hoponpop69 04:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New article
I created the 2004 Boston Red Sox season article, but I need some help because writing isn't my strong point. I hope to make this article a GA or FA some day, and I would like the article to get in a good start. -- JohnnyAlbert10 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking maybe copy-paste the text in the "2004: World Champions" section of this article and put it in the 2004 Boston Red Sox season article. And in the "2004: World Champions" section of this article, write a brief summary of the season. -- J A 10 Talk • Contribs 18:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nickname
The Red Sox are also known as the Carmine Hose 216.15.115.41 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)MF
 * OK. But we need a WP:RS to show the readers/editors that what you're saying is true. But if you throw it in the article without a citation, we will call it original research. --  J A 10  Talk • Contribs 03:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing 'Boston Pilgrims' to 'Boston Americans' on yearly season pages
For your consideration and debate, I am putting forth the following suggestion:

For the yearly season pages for the 'Boston Pilgrims' (1903 Boston Pilgrims season, 1904 Boston Pilgrims season, 1905 Boston Pilgrims season, and 1906 Boston Pilgrims season).... I am suggesting to change 'Boston Pilgrims' to 'Boston Americans' to make them consistent, not only in the article body but more specifically in the article TITLE as well.

Arguments: 1) The term 'Boston Pilgrims' is not used in the standings. In fact, on those same yearly season pages, 'Boston Americans' is used as the designation in the league standings chart.  This change would make the naming convention consistent.

2) On the Wikipedia page for the Boston Red Sox, it lists the team name from 1901-1907 as the 'Boston Americans'.

3) The term 'Boston Americans' is used on other reference websites, such as Baseball-reference.com/1903ws and baseball-almanac/1903ws

4) Significant research was done by Bill Nowlin*, debunking the myth about the use of 'Pilgrims' as official nickname. This article also references the fact that various companies and websites have begun to update this information, including STATS Inc, The Pittsburgh Pirates, and the above referenced Baseball Reference.com and Baseball Almanac. Here is a version of the article: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/boston_pilgrims_story.shtml

NOTE: If it remains consensus to leave the name as is (Boston Pilgrims), then I propose we change the name from 'Boston Americans' to the 'Boston Pilgrims' for consistency in the following locations 1) the standings on various pages, including those referenced above, 2) on the main Boston Red Sox page where it discusses their team name from 1901-1907 (right box, others), 3) on the list of World Series results... as all of these places say Boston Americans.

Thank you for listening. Please provide input, opinion or your vote. Entirelybs 15:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree with you.  Pats Sox Princess 


 * this like here seems to think they were called Boston Pilgrims, so does this one. The Official MLB site calls them Pilgrams.--Borgardetalk 11:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparel profit
"The Red Sox are also one of the most profitable teams in sports due to the high apparel sales generated by the team" - All profits from apparel sales are distributed evenly to all 30 teams, so this is not true and should be removed.Kgppra17 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Huntington Avenue Grounds.jpg
Image:Huntington Avenue Grounds.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 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 00:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At the image page it points out that the Grounds were last used in 1911, implying that the photo is too old to still be in copyright (ie, it's public domain now). Huw Powell 21:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On the 27th, I changed the licensing on that photo to indicate pre-1923, and I think that has pretty well settled the issue. It says "ballparks.com" on it, but they put that stamp on every one of the photos on their site. It amounts to a free advertisement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Blatant Error
This article makes statements that are simply wrong. First, it states that Grady Little was not fired as manager in 2003. He was. Merely because the act of firing is because a contract is not renewed makes it no less a firing. The weasel-words "not renewed" ought to be left to press releases. He had the job. He wanted to keep the job. The club involuntarily terminated his services. He was fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.57.107 (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He wasn't fired. The team simply let his contract expire.    Sasha Callahan   06:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Balance issues
Roughly the same amount of space is devoted to pre-2002 as to post-2002 in this article. Granted, the last few years have been significant, but some effort should be made to achieve a more equal coverage of the earlier period, or to trim down the newer portion. Biruitorul 01:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I came here to "talk" to comment on something that strikes me as fitting here. Along with what you mention, or at least "how" you mention it, the 2004 to present "season wrapups" are what, half the article?  My suggestion was going to be to create articles for those seasons alone (and leave much shorter summaries in this article).  Not because WP is going to become a play-by-play sportsapedia, but because 04, 07, and the transition from one to the other are very immportant in Sox history.  Perhaps other notable seasons could also be researched and detailed in their own articles too?  One reason I think this makes sense is that far more people are now likely to make recent "season articles" complex and in-depth than will for the "pre-WP" era. Huw Powell 21:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is pretty ridiculous with all the "recentism" and excess detail of recent seasons. A few sentences on each season with a link to the page of that particular season would more than suffice. Just my $.02 Tjrover (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Retired numbers
Someone needs to add Johnny Pesky (#6) to the list as it was announced today, Sept. 23, 2008, that his number will be retired on Sept. 26, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stlrfn81 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have the box all ready to go once the Red Sox officially retire Pesky's number. I've made it even across the board so it's not jumpy or uneven.Pharos04 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They already have, on Friday, September 26th before their game with the Yankees. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 17:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If the encyclopedic content is strong, then it ought to be integrated into the already existing section, not just tacked onto the end. The section already discusses at least Jim Rice and Roger Clemens, so why not combine it together nicely instead of having it on the end? Sorry I reverted it, it just seemed to have been added without thought to how well the entire section read. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I stopped following baseball after i found out my mom was a lesbian . Hence, my surprise when I clicked on 42 to get taken to Jackie Robinson's page, as I was pretty sure he never played for the Red Sox.  I thought that this was an error or even possible vandalism.  I'm wondering, if should there be a special indicator next to each retired 42 on each MLB team page to indicate that Robinson's number was retired across the board, not just on the team he played on.   Clemwang 03:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is actually not the case, as number 42 is currently in use by Mariano Rivera of the New York Yankees. Robinson's number (42) was not retired universally, only be teams that chose to retire it, therefore it needs no special indicator as only certain teams chose to retire it.--72.10.101.109 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is not true. The number was retired universally by MLB. However, players who were already wearing the number 42 could continue to wear it. There were several players at the time who had #42, but Mariano Rivera is the last of them. - Zomic13 16:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this is not relevant to this particular article, but what will be done concerning the retirement of Mariano Rivera's number? It is almost certain that he will have his number 42 retired even though that clearly conflicts with the retirement of Jackie Robinson's number. --G2t2n (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't be the first time a team has retired a number for two players. Heck, wouldn't even be the first time the Yankees have retired a number for two players - #8 was retired by the Pinstripers for Bill Dickey and Yogi Berra.  The Yankees will display two #42s in Monument Park - Rivera's in the customary number-over-pinstripes, and the Jackie Robinson logo for his.  SixFourThree (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

Lack of a Section Regarding the Royal Rooters
I have to ask why there is no section regarding the Royal Rooters, the fan organization that formed in the late 19th century. The history of this organization ties in closely with early Red Sox Nation, and with baseball's history in general. I suggest that that article be merged with this one, or that this article have at least a small section regarding both the Rooters from the late 19th and early 20th century, as well as the modern Royal Rooters of Red Sox Nation.--72.10.101.109 13:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? There's an article for both of them (see Royal Rooters, Red Sox Nation), there's no need to paste that information here Doc Strange (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
Since I don't see any discussion on the proposed merge (of merging Red Sox Nation into Boston Red Sox) by X3210, I will start it off.
 * Strongly Oppose - Red Sox Nation should not be merged. The term for the group of fans is notable (it is mentioned in all types of media, ranging from national (ESPN) to local). There is no reason as to why they should be merged. Red Sox Nation is a term used to describe the fans, whereas the Boston Red Sox article is about the team. -Zomic13 06:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Zomic13 and frankly I ready don't think the merger template should had even been added before a discussion had even begun with the reasons.▪◦▪ ≡ЅiREX≡Talk 08:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per both above. I removed the template; if and when someone takes the time to make a case for merging, they should feel free to add the merge template back in. -Pete 10:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No reasons given for merge. While I'm sure I could come up with a few, the onus is on the nominee to actually come up with something before meaningful discussion can begin. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. The fans, and type of fans, are arguably the most important part of the team. No fans = no team. For a similar discussion see Talk:New York Yankees. --Brewcrewer 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not merge. Both articles are well written, sourced, and the Red Sox article is already way too lengthy.  Leave them both alone.   Keeper  |  76  21:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * and on another note..., I would like to see the sections titled "2004 Season" and "2007 season" drastically reduced to avoid the perception of recentivism. They both have "main article" redirects, but then go on to tell the WHOLE STORY without pause.  Silly repetition of information, and a waste of server space.    The sox won 5 world series prior to 2004 and the attention given to them in contrast to the latest two championships proves my accusation of recentivism.  I'm not saying that the 04/07 teams aren't important.  They are, whether I like it or not.  However, in an article about a baseball team that is over 100 years old, these two seasons only account for about 2% of their existence. They deserve mention, some BASICS, then a redirect.   Keeper  |  76  21:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the template seeing no reasons were given. Its also worth noting that BrewCrewer initiated the "discussion" on the Yankees talk page.    SashaCall   (Sign!)/(Talk!) 21:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Fix
Could someone who bothers to register change arised->arose 70.5.95.218 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)GMM

Fair use rationale for Image:Oldredsoxlogo.gif
Image:Oldredsoxlogo.gif 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 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 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia inconsistent history of Red Sox, Red Stockings, and red socks
The article currently says that the Red Sox get their name from their red socks, but the Atlanta Braves article says that when that NL team, previously called the Boston Red Stockings, changed its name to the Beaneaters, the Americans quickly changed their name to Red Sox. So... these items should be made to agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Both statements are essentially correct. I added some further explanation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "both statements correct"... hmm, I smell a coverup. Why is this Red Sox page so reluctant to come out and say what actually happened? This American League team saw an opportunity when the local NL team abandonned the name Red Stockings, to "steal" some of the residual trademark good will? They then changed their name to Red Sox, the same season that they started wearing the "iconic" red socks. The name does not come from the socks, the socks come from the name. This page BTW http://www.redsoxconnection.com/stories/pilgrims.html details that the Red Sox started wearing red socks for 1907 same year as the new name, and same year that Red Stockings changed their name. I searched the Red Sox page, and it does not even mention the word "stockings". I just find it weird that Red Sox page maintainers would be sooooo embarrassed that they would not mention that the Red Stockings existed before. I mean, it would remove a little confusion, ya know?


 * Your citation says "It was not until the following year, 1908, that players donned red hosiery and played under the name 'Red Sox'." That's consistent with the Okkonen book, and with the writeup. The not-yet-Braves broke their tradition and wore white instead of red in 1907. The not-yet-Red-Sox continued to wear blue in 1907. For 1908, both teams donned red. In fact the uniforms were quite similar, except the not-yet-Braves wore a red "B" on their shirts, while the now-Red-Sox wore that big red stocking on their shirts. Both the name and the socks came from the Americans' decision to wear red. "Coverup"? The one team "stole" from the other, for sure, but you have to keep in mind that the two leagues were actually in competition with each other in those days, and that nicknames and uniforms and logos were not trademarked, so the Red Sox were within their rights. As far as "trademark good will" concerning the National Leaguers, the Americans had outdrawn them from the beginning, anywhere from double to quadruple the number of people each year starting in 1901. In 1907, the Red Sox outdrew the Nationals 436,000 to 203,000. In 1908, it was 473,000 to 253,000. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, maybe I had an old or broken version in my cache or something. when I wrote what I wrote, I had searched the page and the word "stockings" wasn't even there, so I had no idea what you were talking about :) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 10-4. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Integration
This article needs to cite that the Boston Red Sox was the _last_ major league team to integrate racially. Source: http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/oct/redsox/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzuun (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Though it is an embarrassing and sad part of Red Sox baseball history it nevertheless must be included.--72.10.101.109 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

POV Neutrality
Clutch hitting in largely a myth, and should be removed - e —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.111.135 (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

this article needs to be HEAVILY edited, esp. on parts dealing with other teams. The article is written as a soap opera drama rather than actual news and facts. example: "Despite high hopes that the Red Sox would finally vanquish their nemesis from the Bronx, the series started disastrously for them."

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. using words like 'vanquish' sounds like writing from a fan site, not a place to receive valuable information (a team can not vanquish another team, only if they were to buy out that team and disband it, which is close to impossible). I would like remind all editors to write NOT from emotions, but from facts.

if you need to learn more about POV neutrality, please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Adreamtonight 12:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I edited that line with some neutral words, but someone with an English degree would probably best to reword that section; mine is just a temporary fix.

GregX102 15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual Error regarding 1915 World Series
The artlice states that the Red Sox beat the Philadelphia Atletics in the 1915 World Series. They beat the Philiadelphia Phillies.

Cvermette (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed it, thanks. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Split page
Since this article is current more than 85 kilobytes long, under WP:LENGTH, I suggest we should split the page up, especially branching the history section into History of the Boston Red Sox (a page that is currently a redirect back to the main article). This page isn't even close to something like New England Patriots, currently a Wikipedia featured article. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The page seems just fine - to split it up would just add pages to wikipedia that aren't needed. I'd imagine most people who look up the Red Sox are also at least mildly interested in their history as well. Long page or 2 short pages, they'll both get a similar amount of traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysonjacques (talk • contribs)


 * I don't know if it's too long. I do know that some teams with lengthy and colorful histories have a separate history page. But inevitably there is the risk of duplication as well as divergence, i.e. contradictions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the treatment of the Patriots article and its related pages, that really seems like a nice, well-organized method of presenting everything. I'd be in favor of the split. The History of the Red Sox franchise could potentially a great read. As for chronicling individual seasons, it would be quite an undertaking to outline every one of the 100+ seasons in Red Sox history, but there are some seasons already written (1967 and 2004-present) and plenty of other seasons worth an in-depth look (for example: 1946, 1975, 1978, 1986). Doc502 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As a RedSox fan and a history buff, I do not have a problem with reading the history of the team and scrolling down to read more current facts about the team.I dont think we have to be that lazy that we require 20 different references and links to click on to get to where we want to go.Quick reference facts are listed on the side of the page.Long conversationg short, I think its fine the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvergoat83 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with splitting this page. We need the History of the Boston Red Sox page to hold the bulk of this information, not the mainpage. Three-quarters of the main page is dedicated to the history. A brief Cliffs Notes version should be left. But it should be a few paragraphs, detailed just the highlights. This needs to happen.  P G Pirate  14:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I wicked agree with splitting. This is a pretty easy thing to agree with. Red Sox, and History of Red Sox. Two articles. This (Red Sox) article should include a summary of and link to History of Red Sox. Make it happen, or I guess I'll start in on it. Beam (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... this is a tough decision, but I think that there should definitely be a Histor of the Red Sox page. It is very important and would make it easier to find the information you want. However if this is not to be then there should definitely be a major overhaul of the Boston Red Sox page and history should be the first section -- Cpharding618  (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with splitting this page. WP:LENGTH recommends splitting if an article is significantly longer that 30-50K, and this article is more than 90K. I agree with Doc502 in taking a look at the New England Patriots article as a model for how to have a separate history article and with PGPirate to just have brief highlights of the team history on the main article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point Captain-tucker. If that's the case then definitely it should be split -- Cpharding618  (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 00:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the table from WP:LENGTH giving recommendations, the current Boston Red Sox article is 95K:

A rule of thumb
Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages: --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the page should be left as is. It makes no sense to split the page into multiple articles. That just makes it more confusing to find info. It is much eaier if everything is on one pg. That's just my opinion though.

First of all, Captain-tucker, I thought you were in favor of splitting the page and now you're not? What happened? Second of all if you feel that it will become confusing to find information then if we do split the page then why don't we put The History of the Red Sox in a "See Also" section on the main Red Sox page? --  Cpharding618  (talk)


 * Yes, I am still in favor of the split, that comment is from User:RSocks. The table that copied from WP:LENGTH was not closed correctly so the formatting after my comment was a little offset until I fixed it. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be split. Period —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.255.27 (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

SPLIT SPLIT SPLIT SPLIT. Article's way too long --TeejK (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)