Talk:Los Angeles Dodgers/Archive 1

Breaking News Section

Given the news updates that happen during the offseason and regular season, perhaps a 'breaking news' section should be established were current events are cycled through. For example the section would currently contain: Schmidt, Juan Pierre, Wolf, Gonzo trades & Drew walking out on his contract. There's rumor of tampering: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/sports/baseball/08chass.html?ref=sports.

After a while this information would then be replaced by other 'breaking news' and, if deemed historically significant enough, would be integrated into a team history section.--Econmists 07:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Brooklyn separate

The Brooklyn history is sui generis. I demand that the Brooklyn history get a separate article. John wesley 20:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, but they are the same team. They should be on the same page.

Someone has begun a page for the Brooklyn Dodgers. This article is becoming too long anyway. Perhaps moving the Brooklyn history to that page and referencing that article to this one (and vice versa) would be in order at this time. This is common practice on wikipedia when a subject takes up too much space on a page. As long as it is clear to the reader that both pages refer to the same franchise there should be no problem.--Exshpos 16:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what should be done - a detailed History of the Brooklyn Dodgers entry, with a summary on this page. It is the same team, though, so it should not be separated. This is consistent with treatment of other clubs - Seattle Pilots re-routes to Milwaukee Brewers, and both California Angels and Anaheim Angels redirect to the main LA Angels of Anaheim page. -- Chancemichaels 17:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Quick Note

There is an article for Hee Seop Choi on wikipedia, but it isn't linking to him because his name is listed as Hee-Seop Choi. I tried to change but I am relatively inexperienced with wikipedia, and couldn't figure out the way team rosters are stored. So somebody should probably change that.

Why list format?

What's with this bizarre bulleted list format? Wouldn't this article bebetter as simple paragraphs? — Adam Conover † 18:31, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sausage man

Forgive my intrusion, but what about that guy who is always remindinng me to buy Farmer John sausages?

"Jeff Kent (2004 All-star)". i dunno. just made me laugh i guess. Chavez Latrine. yess sausage man, and chavez latrine residents being kicked out by the city for the land. Da 'Sco Mon 08:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bias

• i was originally kiddding, but after reading the the move to california, and 19??- to the present i find the level of bias toward the ballclub horrifying (i nearly got cancer of the lunch just reading them). btw, shouldnt the article include actual team history (ie World Series wins, etc) instead of just stuff on lasorda and scully? i was actually suprised not to find a section on 'pop culture references' which tells readers dodger players have been featured on The Simpsons. work is needed to remove bias and generally make better, but i dunno what the tag for that is. Da 'Sco Mon 08:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's not as much of a bias as your saying. I mean, the section on Vin Scully is only four lines, and he is a very influencial person in Dodger history. And as for Lasorda, he was the manager for twenty years, so you have to figure that he is going to get a fair amount of coverage. It lists World Seriess wins in the article, but if you want a specific section for it, then make one. Don't cry. If you think that we need a change, then make one.

I'm gonna go ahead and elaborate on that one. Vin was not only very influental for The Los Angeles Dodgers, but throughout all of baseball, and the entire entertainment community as well. On top of that he's had a very noted and decorated career (and love affair) with the Los Angeles Dodgers. To limit commentary on him or to call it "biased" would be aking to refusing to mention Babe Ruth as a Yank. Even more of a travesty, actually, considering Babe played for other teams before and after the Yanks, while Vin has only ever worked with the Dodgers, being associated with the "Bloe Crew" longer than the city of Los Angeles itself. As for "bias", any team site can be claimed to have some form of bias either for or against the team. That doesn't make any of these statements any less valid, truthful, or poignant. The Dodgers have had a remarkable dynasty. If to say so makes one seem to favor them, then perhaps you should blame the team for doing so well as opposed to those offering that information. 69.235.129.127 05:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Smokachu13

Cleaning up 25-man roster

User:CFIF apparently didn't like something about my roster modification, but didn't describe what the problem was. I added abbreviations for the countries, for the benefit of those who don't recognize the flags and non-graphical browsers. Is that undesirable, or did something go wrong with the appearance of the information? (SEWilco 01:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC))

It did not match the format of the other MLB rosters, and looked tacky with for example, "*flag* *3 letter abbreviation* *player*". Plus you added some player that was drafted by the Dodgers that wasn't even on the roster. I believe all the 25-man roster pages should have the same format as each other, not some tacky little reformatting job that just makes it all look worse and very unproffesional. If people don't know the country, they can just click on the flag. --CFIF 14:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I did not add any players.
• Not matching the other MLB rosters is irrelevant when all the rosters are changed. This was a test.
• Clicking on the flag brings up a page with a huge graphic of the flag, not the country's page. We can't link an image to a WP article.
• Apparently you don't like the appearance of the flag/abbrev/player.
  • It is common to put the flag after a player's name; how about player/flag/abbrev?
  • Would it be better to put the flag/abbrev in parentheses to indicate the country information is in addition to the player's name? (SEWilco 15:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Okay, you want me to "explain my complaint", well, look, your adding the names looks tacky and looks different from the other 25-man rosters. What more is there to say? --CFIF 01:36, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Because the roster had names, I assume you refer to names or abbreviations of countries. See above. Your repetition of "different" also suggests you have not read my comments above. (SEWilco 04:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Antonio Pérez

This link, which appears on the main article, does not lead to the baseball player bio. I can't find the correct article (Antonio Perez redirects to the same article). Can someone more familiar with Dodger-related articles link to the correct Perez article, or disambiguate the current one as appropriate. Mindmatrix 00:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone had already made Antonio Pérez (baseball player). I've added a disambiguation line to the one about the Spanish statesman. Gene Nygaard 01:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Fernandomania

He was, for a season, about as popular as the Beatles in 64. I remember the joke when his contract for next year came up: "First, he wants Texas back." Did anybody ever clear up what his age actually was? He sure didn't pitch like a 20 year old rookie. There was talk that his agents had lowered the age of a much older, more experienced man, to raise the number of years he could be assumed to play.Profhum 03:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Major Rewrite

I just finished heavily rewriting the history section. The interface complained to me that, at 31 kilobytes, the article may be overlong. I'm not sure if this is true, especially considering the lists that take up the page's bottom third. I don't feel I dwelt overlong on any one topic, but I obviously do have affection for the subject. Editorial cuts may be called for, but I wouldn't mind some discussion. --BlueMoonlet 07:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

After looking at Wikipedia's guidelines on article size, the problems really arise if readable prose begins to exceed 30 kB. With all the lists and tables in this article, I think we're okay. But it shouldn't get much longer. Remember that economy of words is important. --BlueMoonlet 17:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting a couple of recent edits. One of these concerns Vin Scully not mentioning the impending strike during games in 1981 (not 1980). It simply is not a significant enough event to be included in a one-paragraph summary of his career. If you want to discuss this on the Vin Scully page, feel free. The other item I'm reverting is the recent Bradley-Kent idiocy. It seems to me that Wikipedia's purpose is to give background, not to keep up on each piddly little news item. If anyone wants to un-revert, and/or discuss it here, then that's fine. --BlueMoonlet 05:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture vandalism?

Who removed all the pictures?

• Sign your comments, Freepablo --BlueMoonlet 19:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• It was someone operating from the address 69.235.150.146, on 12/1. Please don't do that again. I am reverting. After he did that, a couple other people removed a bunch of linebreaks. I don't think this has any effect on the text as displayed in HTML, so I'm not bothering to disentangle these from the revert. --BlueMoonlet 19:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Terrible Signing

Dodgers made a terrible signing of Furcal. Vizquel dominates him in every aspect. Giants will be champions in 2006. Jendeyoung 21:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a message board. Go take the discussion elsewhere. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 07:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, nice predictions there, buddy. Furcal ended the season with a bating average of over .300, and the Dodgers finished way ahead of the Giants.

Editing the Roster

In addition to the Hee-Seop Choi entry on the roster area that needs to be linked, the manager section still says position currently vacant. Can someone put Grady Little in that slot? I'm pretty inexperienced as far as editing Wikipedia goes, tried for awhile but can't figure it out.

Nasty 1992

I noticed there's no mention of 1992, their worst W/L % in 80 years and their only last-place finish of the century. Article's too long as it is I guess? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)