![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
re: Aug 25 revert by JamesMadison
C'mon Wahkeenah that wasn't an addition, it was a sermon. Your points are good and well written (if somewhat turgid) but you deleted other contributor's works in the process. Yes, the Giants and Dodgers started in New York, but they have been in California for over half a century. And New York is not the "cradle of baseball." That's not neutral, and it's not true either. You can write better than this, and you have.
ADD to this article, okay? (And I hate reverting). I'll leave it to you to add your otherwise valid contribution appropriately.
Cheers dude (and all other contributors). JamesMadison 07:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
If you bother to look closely at the history, you will see that I did not delete anything, I just created a new section for some of it called "Spoilers", to distinguish head-to-head "Pennant Race Drama" (such as 1951 and 1962) from situations where one team, out of the race itself, knocked the other team out of the race (1934, 1982, 1991, etc.) Maybe the early history portion sounded a little too gushy. Maybe you're not interested in anything historical prior to the Clinton administration. I've got news for you... I don't even like New York City or its teams, especially the f'ing Mets. But I know a thing or two about the game's history, and the 1880s are "alive" to me. Evidently that's a minority report. So how about if you put back whatever you think is worthy, if anything. Meanwhile, I'll look around for another hobby. >:( Wahkeenah 12:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Bless you, my son, for thou hast done good. d:) Wahkeenah 00:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Wahkeenah, you were right and I was wrong. I see now that you didn't delete, you moved it. An apology is given where an apology is due. You don't have to tell anyone here that you know baseball history; anybody who has read your other works already knows that. And Old64mb, that was great re-edit for flow. Your fire suppression gear has served you well. JamesMadison 04:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I moved this section from its root on both the Dodgers and Giants pages.
Sorry, BlueMoonlet, I didn't mean to leave out your excellent additions from the original Dodgers' page version. Good to see you added them back; I was merely a victim of technology. My bad there.
I'm doing some cleanup now that this is a brand new page (linking, etc.) as I see others have done as well.
Let's all make this a great page about a great rivalry in a great game.
JamesMadison 05:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me like it would be good to rename this to simply "Giants-Dodgers rivalry", in keeping with other articles such as Red Sox-Yankees Rivalry and White Sox-Cubs rivalry. Wahkeenah 05:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
So, who wants to make the "move"? And is it Giants-Dodgers or Dodgers-Giants? It probably doesn't matter, as long as a redirect is set up from one to the other. Wahkeenah 14:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I would say that, in keeping with other wiki conventions, the R should be an "r". Actually, I don't agree with that. But that's the wiki convention. And if there is already a rivalry page, it should all be merged. As far as the name order, I would speculate that "Giants-Dodgers" rolls off the tongue easier than "Dodgers-Giants". However, on the Dodgers page, you would say "Dodgers-Giants" and then redirect to "Giants-Dodgers". Wahkeenah 16:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm necroing this part of the discussion, since when I was fixing an edit it struck me that I couldn't find a professional journalist who refers to this as the "Dodgers-Giants" rivalry; rather, they use "Giants-Dodgers". There is one book that has that title, and one website, but beyond that the professionals seem to use the latter phrasing; in fact, this article shows up as one of the few unique ones with this phrase. It may be that we're all imitating Vin Scully, who I can't recall ever saying the "Dodgers and the Giants" when referring to the rivalry - it's always reversed, and I ain't smart enough to go against Vin. Not sure if this needs to go up for a vote or not. Thoughts? 21:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC) âPreceding unsigned comment added by Old64mb ( talk ⢠contribs)
" https://www.google.com/search?q=%22giants-dodgers+rivalry%22+-wikipedia" shows 5240 results. " https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dodgers-giants+rivalry%22+-wikipedia" shows 4980 results. Wikipedia influenced the results in the other direction. Anecdotally, I never hear "Dodgers-Giants" and it is unusual and jarring to refer to this article by its current name, so I would support changing it a la Yankees-Red Sox. 73.170.127.191 ( talk) 23:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Add a history of the Giants v Dodgers (or vice-versa) to this page to put all the numbers and anecdotes currently contained into perspective. How would someone from England or Estonia (or Japan or Niger) read about this rivalry? Would they get it?
JamesMadison 06:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Somebody from Japan probably would, but the=at's off the subject. ĎפקΚĐĐĎĎ 21:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I took out a rather non-NPOV add by 72.78.41.101 regarding how this rivalry is better than the Sox-Yankees one. Part of it was simply in error as Yankees fans do in fact hate Sox fans - witness the old 1918 chants let alone the attendance at Yankee stadium for the games - but more importantly the evidence presented to support the argument wasn't effective, making it a strongly POV addition. Jim Caple's article is probably the best of the bunch comparing the two, and even he admits there's no real way to validate either claim. If someone wants to add more substantial facts arguing how one rivalry is better than the other to that section, be my guest! - Old64mb 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no knowledge firsthand of Yankees-Sox. Like others feel, the whole "sports/baseball-revolves-around NY-BOS" attitude prevalent on ESPN and other media revolts me, but I am otherwise not exposed to them and don't care. I don't think either rivalry merits ANY mention whatsoever in the other's article (i.e. keep the Yankees out of Giants-Dodgers and the Giants out of Yankees-Bosox, period.) As a Giant fan since 1959 who lives in Ohio but thru the miracle of the internet listens to every Giant broadcast, I can say the intensity of the rivalry from a Giant perspective is very real and very strong. I have a grown son who has never been to California yet loathes Dodger blue more than me! (Wonder where he picked that up?) Needless to say i lack the objectivity to contribute to these particular articles unless I find a factual error, which is rare. You guys are good.--Buckboard 22:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this is just a lack of info on my part, but it seem as though a lot of sports wtiters tend to build up the yanks-sox rivalry as the biggest in baseball. I always here them gabbin' about that on ESPN. But, it's not true. The Dodger-Giant rivalry has lasted longer and is just as heated as any other rivalry. I doubt that the Yanks and Sox want to beat one another any more badly than the Dodgers and Giants.
I think that there might be some Giants bias on the page. If you look it over, every time it lists the two teams as having done something, it puts it as "the giants and dodgers". The dodgers never come first. (Which, alphebitically speaking, that dosen't make sense.) Also, in the Pennant Race Drama section, it only list Giant victories. So, I am currently doing my best to switch some the names around and get rid of as much bias as possible.
Their have been a lot of edits over the past two days on a brand new 'yew york' section. To the writer, I must say this: the idea in itself is fine, but I don't beleive that it's really been implemented correctly. For example, the same paragraph had been put in twice. The one about 'For four years...'. That was in the first section and the New York section. Also, there was too much on the Yankees. This page is a Dodgers and Giants rivaly page, and any other team info would disrupte the flow of the page. I still think a New York section would work, but only if it deals with the rivalry between those two teams. Thanks.
I was always taught that that statement really started the rivalry. If this is the case shouldn't it be categorized on its own.-- Seventy-one 06:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:New York Giants logo.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 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Brooklyn Dodgers logo.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 09:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:NLW-LAD-Insignia.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 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:NLW-LAD-Insignia.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 ( talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there actual evidence of "Beat L.A." being coined by fans of the Giants, or is this just a dubious claim? Redsox00002 ( talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It is definently used in San Francisco, however it was coined by San Diego. The Padres hate the Dodgers much more than the Giants do. 119.73.244.190 ( talk) 04:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The image Image:NLW-LAD-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
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
For those who continue to re-add the Dodgers and Giants logos: Please read and understand WP:NFCC. The dueling logos may be a typical image you'd find on a sports web page describing the rivalry, but they fail criteria 8 (the logos do not substantially increase the reader's understanding of the Dodgers-Giants rivalry) and 10{c} (the image description pages lack a fair use rationale for this article). A user who wants to see the logos can easily click on the article's helpful links to Los Angeles Dodgers or San Francisco Giants. szyslak ( t) 19:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with this assessment of free use. The Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals, and Cubs all have their logos displayed for their respective rivalry pages. If they can use their logos, why can't the Dodgers or the Giants?-- Jkfp2004 ( talk) 04:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't there an incident that made Matt Williams angrily tell TV reporters, "They'll [the Dodgers] be lucky to ever win here ever again!!!". JAF1970 ( talk) 01:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
My recollection of this brawl from seeing it on video tape contradicts several of the claims. Additionally, the cite used for most of this information does not back up almost any of it that purports to. If no one cleans it up/provides more valid cite, I'll remove the unsourced stuff. "Marichal Hits Roseboro With Bat and Starts Brawl as Giants Top Dodgers" is the repeated cited article that does not verify any of the material it claims to. Whatzinaname ( talk) 06:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Does someone have a source for the first meeting in 1883? I've also seen it posited as the same date (April 18), but in 1884. Bchaosf ( talk) 23:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
DodgersâGiants rivalry. 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:
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).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on DodgersâGiants rivalry. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Both the "Bryan Stow beating" and the "Death of Jonathan Denver" were fan violence incidents, so they're "Fan Violence" subcategories in addition to "Notorious Incidents" subcategories. Categorizing the incidents as 8.3.1 and 8.3.2 would have a consistent logic to it. I'm not sure how to do that.
Also, man, these people are extreme. It's really not important.
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
re: Aug 25 revert by JamesMadison
C'mon Wahkeenah that wasn't an addition, it was a sermon. Your points are good and well written (if somewhat turgid) but you deleted other contributor's works in the process. Yes, the Giants and Dodgers started in New York, but they have been in California for over half a century. And New York is not the "cradle of baseball." That's not neutral, and it's not true either. You can write better than this, and you have.
ADD to this article, okay? (And I hate reverting). I'll leave it to you to add your otherwise valid contribution appropriately.
Cheers dude (and all other contributors). JamesMadison 07:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
If you bother to look closely at the history, you will see that I did not delete anything, I just created a new section for some of it called "Spoilers", to distinguish head-to-head "Pennant Race Drama" (such as 1951 and 1962) from situations where one team, out of the race itself, knocked the other team out of the race (1934, 1982, 1991, etc.) Maybe the early history portion sounded a little too gushy. Maybe you're not interested in anything historical prior to the Clinton administration. I've got news for you... I don't even like New York City or its teams, especially the f'ing Mets. But I know a thing or two about the game's history, and the 1880s are "alive" to me. Evidently that's a minority report. So how about if you put back whatever you think is worthy, if anything. Meanwhile, I'll look around for another hobby. >:( Wahkeenah 12:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Bless you, my son, for thou hast done good. d:) Wahkeenah 00:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Wahkeenah, you were right and I was wrong. I see now that you didn't delete, you moved it. An apology is given where an apology is due. You don't have to tell anyone here that you know baseball history; anybody who has read your other works already knows that. And Old64mb, that was great re-edit for flow. Your fire suppression gear has served you well. JamesMadison 04:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I moved this section from its root on both the Dodgers and Giants pages.
Sorry, BlueMoonlet, I didn't mean to leave out your excellent additions from the original Dodgers' page version. Good to see you added them back; I was merely a victim of technology. My bad there.
I'm doing some cleanup now that this is a brand new page (linking, etc.) as I see others have done as well.
Let's all make this a great page about a great rivalry in a great game.
JamesMadison 05:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me like it would be good to rename this to simply "Giants-Dodgers rivalry", in keeping with other articles such as Red Sox-Yankees Rivalry and White Sox-Cubs rivalry. Wahkeenah 05:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
So, who wants to make the "move"? And is it Giants-Dodgers or Dodgers-Giants? It probably doesn't matter, as long as a redirect is set up from one to the other. Wahkeenah 14:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I would say that, in keeping with other wiki conventions, the R should be an "r". Actually, I don't agree with that. But that's the wiki convention. And if there is already a rivalry page, it should all be merged. As far as the name order, I would speculate that "Giants-Dodgers" rolls off the tongue easier than "Dodgers-Giants". However, on the Dodgers page, you would say "Dodgers-Giants" and then redirect to "Giants-Dodgers". Wahkeenah 16:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm necroing this part of the discussion, since when I was fixing an edit it struck me that I couldn't find a professional journalist who refers to this as the "Dodgers-Giants" rivalry; rather, they use "Giants-Dodgers". There is one book that has that title, and one website, but beyond that the professionals seem to use the latter phrasing; in fact, this article shows up as one of the few unique ones with this phrase. It may be that we're all imitating Vin Scully, who I can't recall ever saying the "Dodgers and the Giants" when referring to the rivalry - it's always reversed, and I ain't smart enough to go against Vin. Not sure if this needs to go up for a vote or not. Thoughts? 21:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC) âPreceding unsigned comment added by Old64mb ( talk ⢠contribs)
" https://www.google.com/search?q=%22giants-dodgers+rivalry%22+-wikipedia" shows 5240 results. " https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dodgers-giants+rivalry%22+-wikipedia" shows 4980 results. Wikipedia influenced the results in the other direction. Anecdotally, I never hear "Dodgers-Giants" and it is unusual and jarring to refer to this article by its current name, so I would support changing it a la Yankees-Red Sox. 73.170.127.191 ( talk) 23:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Add a history of the Giants v Dodgers (or vice-versa) to this page to put all the numbers and anecdotes currently contained into perspective. How would someone from England or Estonia (or Japan or Niger) read about this rivalry? Would they get it?
JamesMadison 06:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Somebody from Japan probably would, but the=at's off the subject. ĎפקΚĐĐĎĎ 21:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I took out a rather non-NPOV add by 72.78.41.101 regarding how this rivalry is better than the Sox-Yankees one. Part of it was simply in error as Yankees fans do in fact hate Sox fans - witness the old 1918 chants let alone the attendance at Yankee stadium for the games - but more importantly the evidence presented to support the argument wasn't effective, making it a strongly POV addition. Jim Caple's article is probably the best of the bunch comparing the two, and even he admits there's no real way to validate either claim. If someone wants to add more substantial facts arguing how one rivalry is better than the other to that section, be my guest! - Old64mb 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no knowledge firsthand of Yankees-Sox. Like others feel, the whole "sports/baseball-revolves-around NY-BOS" attitude prevalent on ESPN and other media revolts me, but I am otherwise not exposed to them and don't care. I don't think either rivalry merits ANY mention whatsoever in the other's article (i.e. keep the Yankees out of Giants-Dodgers and the Giants out of Yankees-Bosox, period.) As a Giant fan since 1959 who lives in Ohio but thru the miracle of the internet listens to every Giant broadcast, I can say the intensity of the rivalry from a Giant perspective is very real and very strong. I have a grown son who has never been to California yet loathes Dodger blue more than me! (Wonder where he picked that up?) Needless to say i lack the objectivity to contribute to these particular articles unless I find a factual error, which is rare. You guys are good.--Buckboard 22:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this is just a lack of info on my part, but it seem as though a lot of sports wtiters tend to build up the yanks-sox rivalry as the biggest in baseball. I always here them gabbin' about that on ESPN. But, it's not true. The Dodger-Giant rivalry has lasted longer and is just as heated as any other rivalry. I doubt that the Yanks and Sox want to beat one another any more badly than the Dodgers and Giants.
I think that there might be some Giants bias on the page. If you look it over, every time it lists the two teams as having done something, it puts it as "the giants and dodgers". The dodgers never come first. (Which, alphebitically speaking, that dosen't make sense.) Also, in the Pennant Race Drama section, it only list Giant victories. So, I am currently doing my best to switch some the names around and get rid of as much bias as possible.
Their have been a lot of edits over the past two days on a brand new 'yew york' section. To the writer, I must say this: the idea in itself is fine, but I don't beleive that it's really been implemented correctly. For example, the same paragraph had been put in twice. The one about 'For four years...'. That was in the first section and the New York section. Also, there was too much on the Yankees. This page is a Dodgers and Giants rivaly page, and any other team info would disrupte the flow of the page. I still think a New York section would work, but only if it deals with the rivalry between those two teams. Thanks.
I was always taught that that statement really started the rivalry. If this is the case shouldn't it be categorized on its own.-- Seventy-one 06:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:New York Giants logo.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 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Brooklyn Dodgers logo.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 09:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:NLW-LAD-Insignia.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 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:NLW-LAD-Insignia.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 ( talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there actual evidence of "Beat L.A." being coined by fans of the Giants, or is this just a dubious claim? Redsox00002 ( talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It is definently used in San Francisco, however it was coined by San Diego. The Padres hate the Dodgers much more than the Giants do. 119.73.244.190 ( talk) 04:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The image Image:NLW-LAD-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
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
For those who continue to re-add the Dodgers and Giants logos: Please read and understand WP:NFCC. The dueling logos may be a typical image you'd find on a sports web page describing the rivalry, but they fail criteria 8 (the logos do not substantially increase the reader's understanding of the Dodgers-Giants rivalry) and 10{c} (the image description pages lack a fair use rationale for this article). A user who wants to see the logos can easily click on the article's helpful links to Los Angeles Dodgers or San Francisco Giants. szyslak ( t) 19:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with this assessment of free use. The Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals, and Cubs all have their logos displayed for their respective rivalry pages. If they can use their logos, why can't the Dodgers or the Giants?-- Jkfp2004 ( talk) 04:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't there an incident that made Matt Williams angrily tell TV reporters, "They'll [the Dodgers] be lucky to ever win here ever again!!!". JAF1970 ( talk) 01:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
My recollection of this brawl from seeing it on video tape contradicts several of the claims. Additionally, the cite used for most of this information does not back up almost any of it that purports to. If no one cleans it up/provides more valid cite, I'll remove the unsourced stuff. "Marichal Hits Roseboro With Bat and Starts Brawl as Giants Top Dodgers" is the repeated cited article that does not verify any of the material it claims to. Whatzinaname ( talk) 06:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Does someone have a source for the first meeting in 1883? I've also seen it posited as the same date (April 18), but in 1884. Bchaosf ( talk) 23:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
DodgersâGiants rivalry. 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:
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).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on DodgersâGiants rivalry. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Both the "Bryan Stow beating" and the "Death of Jonathan Denver" were fan violence incidents, so they're "Fan Violence" subcategories in addition to "Notorious Incidents" subcategories. Categorizing the incidents as 8.3.1 and 8.3.2 would have a consistent logic to it. I'm not sure how to do that.
Also, man, these people are extreme. It's really not important.