This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philadelphia Phillies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Philadelphia Phillies received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
The article section on the Mets-Phillies rivalry presently has the sentence:
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)
An image used in this article,
File:RaulIbanez.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, 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 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)
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)
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))
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 What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@ 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 Wikipedia article titles and section headings." Would you please adjust the headings accordingly? Thanks. -- Thnidu ( talk) 21:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Andrewsnyder26345: Your edit to § Controversial uniform changes doesn't quite make sense. Originally the sentence was
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)
@ RA0808: In Philadelphia Phillies § 2013-present: Recent years you've reverted 360mlgnoscoper420's edit. As far as I can see, this addition —
— 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)—
—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)
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:
and quoted Wikipedia: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[ing] other people into our most recent [and only!] disagreement".
In reply, he wrote on my talk page:
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
References
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)
@ Jordandlee: Let's see about that.
Be more careful and more polite. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. -- Thnidu ( talk) 01:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Right now, you honestly sound like one of those kids trying to prove that the illuminati is real Jordandlee ( talk) 06:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I thanked myself when I first made my second account to see what it did. If there is anyway to check, you will see that I did that a while ago and it was the only time. Jordandlee ( talk) 05:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm restoring three references in this section that were replaced with simple unlinked markers ([14],[15],[16]) in the course of the edit wars discussed above. -- Thnidu ( talk) 04:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Jordandlee changed "are" to "is" in the first sentence:
with the comment
EricEnfermero reverted it with the comment
I agree with EricEnfermero. Number agreement in English depends on the words more than what they refer to. Look at the whole paragraph:
When "the Phillies" is the subject of a verb, the verb is plural. When a pronoun refers back to "the Phillies", the pronoun is "they", not "it". Of course we don't say "The team are good", because "the team" is a singular expression. For exactly the same reason, we don't say "the Phillies is good", because "the Phillies" is a plural expression.
-- Thnidu ( talk) 15:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
§ Philadelphia Phillies#2009–2012 said
The underlined text was added by IP user 50.205.174.10, with no citation. There is no record of such a player in Baseball-Reference.com or the Baseball Hall of Fame.
That IP address has a record containing many non-constructive or outright vandalistic edits, and a Talk page consisting entirely of notices of reversion, reproofs, and warnings. I have removed the addition. -- Thnidu ( talk) 06:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu, why did you delete this section? WP:BRD and WP:OTHERSTUFF are about Wikipedia procedures; they have nothing to do with content, including the content you deleted. Please explain. Thnidu ( talk) 03:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Muboshgu: The rivalry was notable before the Dodgers moved to L.A. How would you feel about restoring the section, appropriately edited and probably reduced in size, as a historical rivalry? After all, Wikipedia is not limited to the present. -- Thnidu ( talk) 16:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Philadelphia Phillies. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.zimbio.com/Major%20League%20Baseball/articles/sXdA_1ke14O/Philadelphia%20Phillies%20Lead%20MLB%20AttendanceWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Philadelphia Phillies. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Philadelphia Phillies. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The second most recent edit, by an IP editor, added Jim Salisbury to the list of owners, with no source cited. But the ref at the end of that list, https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/philadelphia-phillies/no-longer-team-owner-bill-giles-still-has-phillies-opinions, was an article with Jim Salisbury as author. I've reverted that edit as vandalism. -- Thnidu ( talk) 19:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I am as excited as any Phillies fan for the way the 2019 season has kicked off, but talking about the results of the first regular season series feels like way too myopic a detail given the overall purpose of a Wiki entry like this. Individual season entries exist for this reason. And I would say it's an issue with the team history section as a whole; the concise narrative style used for the franchise's early years is lost once it gets into the 21st century. The section "Rebuilding Years (2013-2018)," for example, honestly doesn't need to be more than three or four sentences long, whereas now it reads like some sort of fantasy baseball transaction ticker. I put this out to the general style & content stewards of this article as something to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.47.36 ( talk) 01:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Since the Phillies have phased out their red alternate jerseys (and haven’t worn them since 2017) should they be removed from the uniform image? I don’t know how to do it, but I feel like they should be removed. TardisSixteen ( talk) 02:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The Phillies were never referred to as the "Red Pinstripes" (the articles referencing this are actually referring to the uniform rather than the team). It seems like a stretch to use that in the "Other Nicknames" category. It would be more acceptable to list "Blue Jays" here from '44 - '46. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madking2222 ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
You're referring to poetic license in an article saying "Red Pinstripes". As a lifelong Philadelphian, Phillies historian and Phillies fan, I can honestly say that nobody in this area refers to them as the "Red Pinstripes". My point about "Blue Jays" was that it NEVER was an official nickname of the team, and would be better off in that section than "The Red Pinstripes" (Blue Jays was an attempt to change the nickname by the owner by showing it in public, hoping it would catch on. The team never officially changed the name from Phillies (they still wore Phillies on their jerseys the entire time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madking2222 ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The Phillies do not claim that the Worcester Brown Stockings moved to Philadelphia. They only claim that the National League transferred the "Franchise Rights" to Al Reach and John Rogers, who placed the team in Philadelphia. The Phillies claim that their franchised entity started in 1883. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madking2222 ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way to merge the page with the History of the Philadelphia Phillies page by any chance? I see no reason why there are two pages of Phillies history. Both pages have information that the other does not have, so we should combine them instead of keeping them separate. SBLII ( talk) 15:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Why is the team logo missing at the top of the page? Only the cap insignia is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madking2222 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
What do you call a single member of the Philadelphia Phillies? The Schwarber article calls him a "Phillie" which just seems wrong. Wouldn't he be a Philly or a Phil? ― Buster7 ☎ 04:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philadelphia Phillies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Philadelphia Phillies received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
The article section on the Mets-Phillies rivalry presently has the sentence:
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)
An image used in this article,
File:RaulIbanez.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, 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 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)
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)
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))
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 What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@ 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 Wikipedia article titles and section headings." Would you please adjust the headings accordingly? Thanks. -- Thnidu ( talk) 21:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Andrewsnyder26345: Your edit to § Controversial uniform changes doesn't quite make sense. Originally the sentence was
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)
@ RA0808: In Philadelphia Phillies § 2013-present: Recent years you've reverted 360mlgnoscoper420's edit. As far as I can see, this addition —
— 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)—
—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)
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:
and quoted Wikipedia: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[ing] other people into our most recent [and only!] disagreement".
In reply, he wrote on my talk page:
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
References
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)
@ Jordandlee: Let's see about that.
Be more careful and more polite. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. -- Thnidu ( talk) 01:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Right now, you honestly sound like one of those kids trying to prove that the illuminati is real Jordandlee ( talk) 06:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I thanked myself when I first made my second account to see what it did. If there is anyway to check, you will see that I did that a while ago and it was the only time. Jordandlee ( talk) 05:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm restoring three references in this section that were replaced with simple unlinked markers ([14],[15],[16]) in the course of the edit wars discussed above. -- Thnidu ( talk) 04:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Jordandlee changed "are" to "is" in the first sentence:
with the comment
EricEnfermero reverted it with the comment
I agree with EricEnfermero. Number agreement in English depends on the words more than what they refer to. Look at the whole paragraph:
When "the Phillies" is the subject of a verb, the verb is plural. When a pronoun refers back to "the Phillies", the pronoun is "they", not "it". Of course we don't say "The team are good", because "the team" is a singular expression. For exactly the same reason, we don't say "the Phillies is good", because "the Phillies" is a plural expression.
-- Thnidu ( talk) 15:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
§ Philadelphia Phillies#2009–2012 said
The underlined text was added by IP user 50.205.174.10, with no citation. There is no record of such a player in Baseball-Reference.com or the Baseball Hall of Fame.
That IP address has a record containing many non-constructive or outright vandalistic edits, and a Talk page consisting entirely of notices of reversion, reproofs, and warnings. I have removed the addition. -- Thnidu ( talk) 06:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Muboshgu, why did you delete this section? WP:BRD and WP:OTHERSTUFF are about Wikipedia procedures; they have nothing to do with content, including the content you deleted. Please explain. Thnidu ( talk) 03:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Muboshgu: The rivalry was notable before the Dodgers moved to L.A. How would you feel about restoring the section, appropriately edited and probably reduced in size, as a historical rivalry? After all, Wikipedia is not limited to the present. -- Thnidu ( talk) 16:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Philadelphia Phillies. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.zimbio.com/Major%20League%20Baseball/articles/sXdA_1ke14O/Philadelphia%20Phillies%20Lead%20MLB%20AttendanceWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Philadelphia Phillies. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Philadelphia Phillies. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The second most recent edit, by an IP editor, added Jim Salisbury to the list of owners, with no source cited. But the ref at the end of that list, https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/philadelphia-phillies/no-longer-team-owner-bill-giles-still-has-phillies-opinions, was an article with Jim Salisbury as author. I've reverted that edit as vandalism. -- Thnidu ( talk) 19:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I am as excited as any Phillies fan for the way the 2019 season has kicked off, but talking about the results of the first regular season series feels like way too myopic a detail given the overall purpose of a Wiki entry like this. Individual season entries exist for this reason. And I would say it's an issue with the team history section as a whole; the concise narrative style used for the franchise's early years is lost once it gets into the 21st century. The section "Rebuilding Years (2013-2018)," for example, honestly doesn't need to be more than three or four sentences long, whereas now it reads like some sort of fantasy baseball transaction ticker. I put this out to the general style & content stewards of this article as something to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.47.36 ( talk) 01:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Since the Phillies have phased out their red alternate jerseys (and haven’t worn them since 2017) should they be removed from the uniform image? I don’t know how to do it, but I feel like they should be removed. TardisSixteen ( talk) 02:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The Phillies were never referred to as the "Red Pinstripes" (the articles referencing this are actually referring to the uniform rather than the team). It seems like a stretch to use that in the "Other Nicknames" category. It would be more acceptable to list "Blue Jays" here from '44 - '46. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madking2222 ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
You're referring to poetic license in an article saying "Red Pinstripes". As a lifelong Philadelphian, Phillies historian and Phillies fan, I can honestly say that nobody in this area refers to them as the "Red Pinstripes". My point about "Blue Jays" was that it NEVER was an official nickname of the team, and would be better off in that section than "The Red Pinstripes" (Blue Jays was an attempt to change the nickname by the owner by showing it in public, hoping it would catch on. The team never officially changed the name from Phillies (they still wore Phillies on their jerseys the entire time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madking2222 ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The Phillies do not claim that the Worcester Brown Stockings moved to Philadelphia. They only claim that the National League transferred the "Franchise Rights" to Al Reach and John Rogers, who placed the team in Philadelphia. The Phillies claim that their franchised entity started in 1883. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madking2222 ( talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way to merge the page with the History of the Philadelphia Phillies page by any chance? I see no reason why there are two pages of Phillies history. Both pages have information that the other does not have, so we should combine them instead of keeping them separate. SBLII ( talk) 15:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Why is the team logo missing at the top of the page? Only the cap insignia is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madking2222 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
What do you call a single member of the Philadelphia Phillies? The Schwarber article calls him a "Phillie" which just seems wrong. Wouldn't he be a Philly or a Phil? ― Buster7 ☎ 04:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)