Talk:New York Yankees/Archive 4

The Evil Empire

Someone had earlier added "The Evil Empire" as one of the nicknames for the Yankees. While it is used by detractors, it is still a legitimate nickname, and has actually been embraced by many Yankees fans. It's widely used, and it deserves to be mentioned among the other nicknames. Please discuss this here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silent Wind of Doom (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

You added it. I don't think it belongs in the lead but rather in the Critics section (the Bronx Zoo should go down there too) where it should be discussed in more detail. Michael Greiner 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the user "YouLookAdopted" added The Evil Empire on March 27th. I think it should at least get mention along with all the other nicknames, especially as it is one of the most used other names for the Yankees. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silent Wind of Doom (talk • contribs) 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

How about I put the nicknames in the intro and just say that that's what critics call them, and then leave the longer explaination to the critics section. The only problem is that Bronx Zoo isn't always used by critics. It's been used by critics and fans alike. Also, thank you Passion of the Damon for completely ignoring the civilized discussion and just reverting it without so much as a word here. Really great to have people like that working on here to better this page.Silent Wind of Doom 11:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that Bronx Zoo can be there, but Evil Empire can't? It's just as valid as any other nickname. It's widely used, and, as I mentioned, many fans have come to love and embrace it. There's two Yankees fans who have videos on MySpace under the name "The Evil Empire". Why on earth can't we leave it at the beginning. If anything, leaving such a widely used nickname out of the list of nicknames is being extremely biased. Silent Wind of Doom 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Derogatory or not, the nickname as numerous reliable sources to quote and is now commonly used and as noted above, actually embraced by some Yankees fans. Yankees76 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The critics section is biased.

No, it's not. The Yankees win a lot. Their fans love it, other teams' fans don't. Plain and simple as that. Baseball Bugs 02:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is biased. Old news.71.127.194.171 00:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How would you fix it, then? Baseball Bugs 02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The part that says people chant "Yankees Suck" when the Yankees are winning doesn't make sense. People chant it when the Yankees are losing and when the opposing team is having some sort of rally. Especially if it is a weak team and the underdog or one with a lower payroll, like the Colorado Rockies or Tampa Bay Devil Rays.151.198.161.98 00:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the stuff is unsourced or opinions, like the part that says that there are more Yankee fans than Met fans.71.127.194.36 07:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, I'll try to dig up some attendance stats for both teams. As far as the whole Evil Empire discussion, if "The Bronx Zoo" is listed, "Evil Empire" should be. Bronx Zoo generally refers to the team of a specific era, while Evil Empire generally implies the team under George, could refer to the entire history.Mbruno42 14:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There are Yankees fans everywhere. You'd be hard pressed to find many Mets fans outside the New York area, except among transplants. Baseball Bugs 15:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't technically prove that even if there was an official poll.

I could if I had to. And so could you. Baseball Bugs 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. Also, largest indent (11) I've seen. --Michael Greiner 22:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this one? :) Baseball Bugs 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't spam the talk page with random off-topic comments.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anti-75 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 August 2007.

Mind your own business, red-link. Baseball Bugs 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So shouldn't every team have a "Critics" section? Oh of course not, only the team with the MOST fans, right? Yeah, that really makes sense.......Wikipedia at its best. 67.186.151.231 00:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could have a Critics section for the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. But that would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Baseball Bugs 00:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a quick reply. Do you have Wikipedia send you an e-mail when the page is edited? Or do you willingly reserve time in your day just for editing Wikipedia articles? Anyway, this "Critics" section is just a way for Yankee Haters to get in their little digs without repercussion, all the while claiming its necessary for maintaining Wikipedia's self-degrading and unnecessary formatting rules. I'm working on a "Critics" section for the New York Mets and Boston Red Sox as we speak. And it will be put into the articles. 67.186.151.231 00:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I say remove it, I leave near the yankee stadium and no one here uses it, and unless you have a source that says its a common nickname, take it off. IN FACT, i hear it most of the time for the red sox, NOT the yankees. Adreamtonight 12:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's largely a Red Sox fan nickname for the Yankees, but that doesn't make it any less legitimate. Given the teams' respective histories, calling the Red Sox an "empire" could only be a joke. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

the article does NOT mention that this is Red Sox fan nickname for the Yankees, frankly if I had written it as it is, ALL of my Journalism prof. would have cut my throat for that. Furthermore, there is no citation this nickname is used by other teams fans (such as Orioles fans). As it stands, without citations also, its just 'reactionary' remarks by other teams' fans, and this is NOT a 'reactionary' piece on the Yankees, but an article on Yankees' history, development, and current progress. Including such pieces so high up may be against POV neutrality. It should probably be in a different section showing current opinion of the Yankees (with citations of course) but NOT be used as an introduction piece. Encyclopedias are written for general audiences, not for die hard sports fan who may understand the inner references. Adreamtonight 12:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading the article again, I say it should be pushed all the way down to critics to maintain POV neutrality, or removed. Adreamtonight 13:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That might be a better place for it. One thing to remember is that this is an "encyclopedia" written by the public, so don't put it on too high a pedestal. I'm sure that you, as a Yankees fan, resent the envy-based term "Evil Empire", just as some fans of the Twins don't like "Twinkies" and some fans of the Cubs don't like "Cubbies". Just bear in mind that you may well have the last laugh this year. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

actually, I never said I was a yankee girl ;) and I think that's the biggest problem when 'the public' writes, its always emotion-fueled writing, never just the facts. As a sport writer, No one should know if you're writing for the 'enemy' or the 'winning team'; If a team is great, the facts will show it. If a team sucks, just show their records, and the reader will catch on. If someone is envious, well that's their problems, not ours. Adreamtonight 13:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What about "The Bronx Zoo"? I haven't heard anyone call the Yankees that in many years, and only then in the context of the book. But even with those up-front, I don't think it's a big deal. Sports are all about controversy and rivalry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sports is about controversy and rivalry, cause that's where it makes the most money :p I removed both as removing one without the other might have caused controversy. I based the reasoning as follow: removed for POV neutrality, as this is a history piece, not a reactionary piece. information removed to 'critics' section. please see talk page as towards why. They are not moved from the article however, they have been pushed down to 'Critics' section, which also needs heavy re-editing. Actually, both 'Fan Support' and 'Critics' appear like a badly written high school essay Adreamtonight 13:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Music Section

It should be added that The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" is played prior to the Yankees taking the field every game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianB4837 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

The reference to the usage of "The Workaholic" chimes is incorrect. The chimes are simple Westminster Chimes, which have been around since the 18th century. The Workaholic by 2 Unlimited is also a copy (also more recent than the Yankees usage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.56.59 (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement about "New York, New York" conflicts with the statement in the Yankee Stadium article that says the Sinatra version is always used. I believe the Yankee Stadium article is correct--the Minelli version was used for a while after losses, but not anymore.209.60.61.226 14:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Steinbrenner's Name?

When Steinbrenner is first mentioned in the article, should we refer to him simply as "George Steinbrenner", or by the full "George M. Steinbrenner III"? Silent Wind of Doom 20:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Since his wiki article is George Steinbrenner and not George M. Steinbrenner III (redirect to George Steinbrenner) I think we should we should use "George Steinbrenner" in the text and "George M. Steinbrenner III" in the infobox. The Yankees' website seems to use both. Michael Greiner 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is when he's first mentioned in the article (at least the history section): "A group of investors, led by Cleveland-based shipbuilder George Steinbrenner, purchased the club from CBS for $8.7 million on January 3, 1973." Just wasn't sure if his full name would fit better there or just his first and last. Silent Wind of Doom 21:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Yankees is" vs. "Yankees are"

Proper phrasing is "Yankees are." This is an American sports team, and that's the correct American usage. Unless and until a consensus is reached to use the other form, it should remain "Yankees are." Comments? Brad E. Williams 20:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Proper phrasing depends on the context of the subject and sentence. If the subject is plaural in which a pronoun for the pluarl is needed, "Yankees are" is to be used. Here, Yankees refers to the players individually, not as a group our singular entity. "The Yankees is" refers to the team itself. It is the name of the team and names follow with sinuglar pronouns. "The New York Yankees is a baseball team." Why? This sentence translates to 'the group of men are a baseball team.' Although there is more than one person, a group is a single entity, as is a team. The word 'team' or 'club' does not need to be included for identification of singular or plural use since it will be obvious based on the subjects use and its pronouns.

Moreoever, there are gross errors in the following: "The Yankees have been Major League Baseball's most storied franchise, winning 26 World Series titles and 39 American League Pennants. Their 26 titles make them the most successful franchise in North American professional sports history, passing the Montreal Canadiens' 24 titles in 1999. They are also the only team represented in the National Baseball Hall of Fame at every position. Notably,they have faced every winner of the National League pennant in the World Series except for the Houston Astros, who won their first pennant in 2005."

The use of "they" and "their" are incorrect. Here, the contect of these sentences is about the team, a singular entity, thus singualr (it, its). "Its 26 titles makes it the most successful franchise (the team, singualr)..." "It has faced...Italic text Houston Astros [the team], who won its..."

That is correct (as it should be throught the entire article, which too is riddled with these grammatical errors. Teamferby 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, from a grammatical standpoint, "Yankees is" would normally be the correct form. However, in practice, plural team names ("Yankees") use plural verbs and pronouns, while singular team names ("Heat") use singular verbs and pronouns. Any news story or book originating in the US demonstrates that. Brad E. Williams 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. Grammatically and conceptually, the New York Yankees are a mass (of what you can't say in polite company ^_^), and mass nouns typically take the plural forms. If you refer to the team as a single unit, then singular forms apply, but a mass group of individuals take plural forms. Not to mention, "Yankees is" sounds bad. I would also posit that singular team names like the Utah Jazz and Miami Heat should also take plural forms...but that's probably because I consume too much English media, who always say things like "Manchester United are two goals up on Arsenal with five minutes remaining" or some such. Don't get me started on the use of "the", either. Nobody, and I mean nobody in their right minds calls Rangers FC "the Glasgow Rangers". SWalkerTTU 09:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So if you understand this, then you will have no problem admitting the stupidity of that concept, where "plural teams take plural verbs and pronouns and singualr teams take singular pronouns and verbs." Each is a team. Each represents the same thing. Each is an accumlulation of many people who, together, create a unified group, a single etity. Whether it's the Miami Heat or the Toronto Blue Jays, each is but one team. Each is singular.Teamferby 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't make grammatical sense. That doesn't change the fact, however, that it's the way it works. I did a quick look around to make sure that it was consistently written that way, and it is. :-) Brad E. Williams 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It makes perfect grammatical sense if you consider the club as a mass noun. It seems to me Teamferby has a conceptual problem, not grammatical. SWalkerTTU 09:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency means nothing if it is wrong. That is the problem in society - society's conformation to social norms. Indeed, nearly everywhere you look it is the way in which you are suggesting it should be. That doesn't justify it. I have had professionals in the media agree with me and their response is "unfortunately, this is the way society is," as to say we as individuals can do nothing about it. Those who know better, will write properly, while everyone else will think we're wrong. The option is to avoid social citicism and fear of rejection and confrom to the incorrect ways. I am not suggesting anything about you, nor am I trying to attack you in my endevours. In fact, I respect you knowledge and stance, but it is still wrong.Teamferby 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with prescriptive grammar—and by extension with prescriptive grammarians—is that essentially it is trying to enforce outdated social norms. All linguistic standards are social norms because language is primarily social in purpose. (If we didn't need to communicate with other humans, we wouldn't need language, would we?) What Teamferby seems to be saying is that people should conform to the particular set of grammatical rules to which he prescribes because they are "correct", when clearly the vast majority do not. If you believe in democracy—or at least majority rule—then that in itself should strike you rather harshly. Even so, what typically happens to social creatures when they fail to follow social norms? They get cast out. And in any case, who is Teamferby to determine English usage rules? I don't see him as the member of an English Academy—as there isn't one—and I've yet to see his particular credentials in the matter. (I know Wikipedia is not supposed to be credentialist, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to take the word of any old crackpot as law.)

Instead, maybe we should more conform to British usage, where we would say something like, "the Utah Jazz are" and "the Miami Heat are". I'll admit, that got me as I first started reading World Soccer (that is, the treatment of a not-obviously-plural team name as a plural, e.g. "Lazio are", "Arsenal are" etc.) but I got used to it after a while and now it's how I think. SWalkerTTU 09:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up, but both of you have broken WP:3RR. Michael Greiner 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that, MG. I wasn't even aware of that rule (which is no excuse). Won't happen again, and I'll understand if I get blocked. Back on topic, it's my feeling that we as Wikipedians are bound by the accepted style, even if we perceive it to be inconsistent or in error, which I think we both agree is the case here. I guess, in a way, that's what makes it a "style." BTW, I took no personal offense to your efforts, and genuinely felt bad about reverting so often - I knew why you'd done the edits, and hoped to bring the affair here so I could explain. I hope that we can get some other opinions on the matter. Brad E. Williams 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't report this but if there is another revert I will. The Yankees' website seems to use "are." "April: The Highlanders are officially renamed the "Yankees" after moving to the Polo Grounds, home of the National League's New York Giants." (Highlanders being the first New York name of the Yankees) seen here. Michael Greiner 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Mr. Greiner, as I had said above, just because one form is used in the mass, does not make it correct. As if the case here, the social norm is "are", just as much as people incorrectly say "everyone has their opinion, etc (seeing how everyone is singular (each person), the pronoun would thus be a singular "his (or her)" and yet in mainstream, people use their, or they when it should be he/she, him/her, his/her, etc. As I also mentioned I have spoken to many people in the media about this - I am a Journalims major - and they have concurred that in the case with sports teams, I am correct in that it is neither singualr nor plural, rather subject to the conext of the sentnece. That is, it must agree with the subject. In the case of "the Yankes __ a sports team, the pronoun must agree not with Yankees (object), but "team" (subject), thus, "The Yankees is a sports team" is correct. It doesn't have to be mainstream - since mainstream incorrectly uses the singualr and plural forms - so long as it is correct. (this unsigned comment was added by Teamferby at 18:58, April 16, 2007)

FTR, I have a B.Sc. in Broadcast Journalism from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University. If I think about it, I may give them a call to see what they say. I do know that I used the "Yankees are" form in any sports-related stories that I took part in and was never told to phrase it otherwise, though that's hardly conclusive evidence. Brad E. Williams 00:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Were you talking to media people such as the Washington Post, (Headline reads: "Yankees Are Left Penned Up by O's" [1]) Los Angeles Times, (Headline reads: "Yankees are relieved in victory over A's" [2]) or USA Today? (Headline reads: "Yankees are good for baseball" [3]) Michael Greiner 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, my apologies for accidentally deleting your latest comment. I was trying to add a note for Teamferby's last comment, which was unsigned, and in the process I deleted yours. Rough editing day for me, it seems. Brad E. Williams 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I figured that, no worries. Michael Greiner 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

AP Style Guide calls for the plural. While the guide itself is not freely available, from their "Ask the Editor": "Team names take plural verbs." Simon12 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been some confusion on whether musical acts take a singular or plural verb. Does it depend on the name? Here are some that have come up in text recently — The Who, Arctic Monkeys, R.E.M. and The Beatles. Thanks for clarification! – from Bend, Ore. on Mon, Jul 17, 2006 "Musical acts" or bands such as the ones you cite, like sports team names, take plural verbs. What is the subject-verb agreement in regards to sports teams? For example, is it: "The Wetumpka Warriors elects a new board" or "The Wetumpka Warriors elect a new board?" – from Wetumpka, AL on Thu, Jun 29, 2006 Team names take plural verbs.

^ Referenced quote Michael Greiner 03:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That is ok (about deleting my post). As for that B.Sc, I hope this was an error, but you do realise that Newhouse, being an institution, is a singualr entity itself, this as you said, "...may give them to see what they say, should read, "call it to see what it had to say," proving my point exactly. Again, you can call and you may get the "use yankees are" response. At Ryerson Univeristy (known for having the best jouralism program in Canada), my profs. also taught us to use "are" with the team name and "is" for the city of the team (I.E. New York is/ the Yankees are), as the "easy" way to differentiate between singualr and plural uses (differentiate between talking about the team or the players). Of course, just as I argued here, using one as a constant is ridiculous because if one knows the English language, he will realise whether one is referting to the team or the players based on the context of the sentence and the pronouns (Yankees are bad = (some of) the players are not good. Yankees is bad = the team istelf is bad). After much discussion I have finally gotten through to many of my Profs. thgouh they too give me the standard response "this is the way everyone else associates it because it's just easier. Well it's also "just easier" for me to bring my notes into my exam, but that's not allowed, is it. Just as there are rules to which to adhere with honesty policies in school (no cheating, thus no notes in an exam), there are rules to the English language. Why the ignorant of society think they can change it with no logic or raional is absurd. Teamferby 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete your post, I signed it for you so that our comments weren't inadvertently mixed by people reading the thread. My use of "them" and "they" was shorthand; I have specific people at the school that I would contact. Perhaps (and this is purely speculation) the problem is that this particular issue is handled differently in Canada. By the way, you might want to check out the Newhouse School. The broadcast journalism program there is the most prestigious in the US. Brad E. Williams 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to attack you or the school. I was just trying to make my point. It is definately not a Canadian thing. I can assure of that. If it is a more Canadian thing, then is shows the high quality that Canada produces. Still, most of Canada would agree with what you are saying, which is unfortante. I mean that in no disrespectful way, as I understand that you're only doing what you were taught. However, it's a matter of common sense and simple logic, really. I was taught to use "everyone has their opinion," and I quickly realised it was wrong, for example.Teamferby 01:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your passion for this issue reminds me a bit of William Safire. I'm more of a Bob Costas. Brad E. Williams 01:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the external links section

I have noticed that the people who monitor this page for wikipedia have decided that external links for fan message boards will not be allowed to be put under external links. Is it possible that I can have some kind of explanation for this? I mean, the link(s) (as I have seen other people put fan forum links here too, besides myself) is legit and is a discussion for Yankees baseball. Why then can it not exist?

Danman1202 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL CanbekEsen 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

10th under Links normally to be avoided: Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. In short, it's policy. Michael Greiner 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. But I did read the entire link regarding the policy that was given to me. It says that these sites are "normally to be avoided" so while that is true, it is not set in stone, correct? All I'm saying here is I think that if a limited number of forums were added to the page as a whole it could only increase the value of the page. In fact I don't know how it would take away from the page. Trust me, I would never add something to a wiki page that would decrease its value in any way, shape, or form.

Danman1202 00:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not like linking websites such as forums and blogs, considering that it's an easy way for self-advertisement. CanbekEsen 01:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The linked forums would more likely than not have a pro-Yankees POV (we want a neutral POV)

2. The forums force you to sign up to post which is against Links normally to be avoided #6.

3. The forums have no content that wouldn't be (or need to be) in the article if it was featured, against #1.

Also most of your edits appear to be adding these forums (all but one) --Michael Greiner 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I remember my edits as I have not made many. The other edit was the addition of Craig Hansen on the list of St. John's alumnus. I added the site more than once because I did not know the reason behind its deletion. Now I do. Thank you for your time.

Danman1202 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Retired number images

I made a new retired number template in Photoshop while I was doing the Celtics' retired numbers; Here is an example:

File:YanksRetired23.png

While the numbers currently on the page look nice, I feel that numbers based on the above template would be an improvement. However, I won't waste my time if people don't want the current numbers replaced, and I certainly don't want to step on any feet. I also did this image for #42:

File:YanksRetired42JR.png

Please let me know what you think. I will be happy to do the rest of the numbers if the change would be welcome. Brad E. Williams 02:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I now have all the images displayed on my user page. If there are no objections, I'll replace the current images in a day or two. Brad E. Williams 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Brad E. Williams 14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. That was fast, definitely faster than a day. First of all, it doesn't seem like a change in the regular numbers is needed. They were drawn to accurately depict the numbers as they appear in Yankee Stadium, and, unfortunately, the new batch aren't as accurate. The numbers are too small, the blue circle is too thick (with the white strip on the outside missing), the pinstripes don't match up right, and the whole thing has a bit of a fuzzy look, with some extra white edges. As for the Jackie Robinson number, that is an accurate depiction of the logo for Jackie Robinson day, but not of the number at the Stadium. The silver and light blue are gold and a darker blue on the logo. The most glaring difference, though, is the fact that the logo and a silver banner are depicted within a white circle the size of the rest of the numbers, while the logo is... well... just the logo.

While what was there wasn't perfect (the 7 never quite looked right, the curved text was just a thick line, and the banner was drawn wrong), it was a better depiction than the new stuff. I will definitely, though, try to use this logo to make the Jackie Robinson retired number look better, and I'll have to fix that banner. Also, do you think you could find a good flat depiction of the current Monument Park sign to replace what's there now? Thanks for everything. - Silent Wind of Doom 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to the previous version and will delete the new images as soon as I figure out how. Sorry for the inconvenience. Brad E. Williams 00:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about it. Thanks for the enthusiasm and good job. It's better than the original version that was here, but the current version was the result of me sitting here for hours with pictures I took of each number trying to get as close as I can to what's there. I do wish, though, that I'd thought of finding the Jackie Robinson logo somewhere, rather than painstakingly trying to reproduce that thing (especially the starburst). As I said, a flat version of the Monument Park sign would be greatly appreciated. - Silent Wind of Doom 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotect}} Could someone add the little box to this article that I've added to all the other baseball articles: It should look like this:

{{current sport-related|mini=1|2007 New York Yankees season}}

An example of how I did this elsewhere: [4] 64.178.96.168 18:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks. 64.178.96.168 19:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Why? It ruins the aesthetics of the article, and can be done with a simple line of text at the end of the lead that redirects you. I just tried to fix it, but it's still not 100%. Look at how they've put it here? Dropping this template right in the middle of the lead? It's a blight, and I say we leave it off the Yankees page in favor of a line of text. - Silent Wind of Doom 22:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Because. Because. In your opinion it ruins the aesthetics. In my opinion, your randomly-placed link in italic font is just as bad, if not worse. In my experience, the sort of template in question is usually placed in the top right corner. - Dudesleeper · Talk 01:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The current event article infobox is usually on the top of the article, centered. Now, the baseball articles have a major infobox, and infoboxes go at the top left of an article unless a template claiming that something is lacking in the entire article or editing is somehow hampered. Look at presidents (Franklin Delano Roosevelt), wars (Vietnam War), baseball players (Reggie Jackson), or even other sports teams (Miami Dolphins) or stadiums (Shea Stadium). It's the way infoboxes are. The top line of that infobox is the name of the team, and that should definitely take preference over the current season. The problem with the template is that it doesn't count as a line. It sits on the left and slims down the table of contents considerably. If you have longer headings, then this can be a problem. To get the table below the template, you have to insert about 7 empty lines. This can be problematic, and this was changed here. If you put it at the beginning of the text, like was done here, but that ends up making two or three lines that are less than an inch, and you cannot say that looks good. - Silent Wind of Doom 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But that ends up making two or three lines that are less than an inch. How low is your screen resolution? - Dudesleeper · Talk 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The template was incredibly helpful, and it was placed in the correct place. By my screen resolution, the layout you used on Philadelphia Phillies is incredibly ugly - it totally messed up the screen. And on this one, there is absolutely no reason for you to remove the template. It's helpful and aids in navigation. Why did you remove it altogether? 64.178.96.168 16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. First of all, half an inch big was a bit of a hyperbole, but it's still cutting the line down a lot. Look at the Boston Red Sox article. You don't want your lead to look like that. It's an important part to the article. Secondly, totally messed up the screen? What are you looking at this thing with? There was a big open white space, and the template was placed there. It's the logical place to put it, of course. However, it seems that this is problematic on some computers, such as when the New York Sports template's pics started blending into the words. The infobox should be the more prominant than this little template. The problem is the fact that it aligns right and doesn't take up any lines. If we could have the disambiguation, the template, and then the infobox one over the other like that, it would be fine. Does anyone know how to edit the template or the formatting of it on the page? A recent event template, as well as almost all templates, usually takes this position anyway. - Silent Wind of Doom 23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. I removed it completely because one sentence in the lead is enough to cover it. You don't need a bulky box to point to the current season. It seems, though, that some people want the box, so we'll have to find a good way to incoporate it, as I mentioned in the previous text.

Per dudesleeper, I'm not seeing any big open white space. In fact, the new arrangement on my screen is incredibly ugly. I think your screensize might be too big. I would take a screenshot, but I don't know how on the linux box here in the library. I really think it should be moved back. And, failing that, we could remove the mini=1 argument, and just put it at the top so that it looks like other current events (see [5]). 64.178.96.168 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

When you say the current arrangement, do you mean the Phillies page or the Yankees page? On the Phillies page, the template has been moved back into favor over the infobox. On the Yankees page, the template has been completely removed and replaced with a simple line of text at the end of the lead. - Silent Wind of Doom 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the big box centered across the top of the page. If you can pare down the coding, please do so. I think the page looks good now and that this will be the most amendable solution for everyone. Michael Greiner 23:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

References

I know a thing or two about consistent referencing. I'll get on that.

Started the first 15, I'll do the rest later. Unless somebody else wants to. Sportskido8 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Travel-related transactions / Cuba

Has anyone else heard of this: Apparently, "in 2003, the Yankees paid the government $75,000 to settle a dispute that it conducted business in Cuba in violation of the embargo." Says so in this rather unrelated AP release. —AldeBaer 15:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sentence about YES

"The Yankees Entertainment and Sports (YES) Network launched in 2002, and served as the home of the New York Yankees during the baseball season, and the New Jersey Nets during the basketball season, making it the only regional sports network in New York City unlike MSG Network, SportsNet New York, and FSN New York." - From the Radio and television section.

Umm... what does this mean? It seems like someone deleted a key phrase in this sentence and it never got fixed. Are they the only regional sports network to do a certain thing, because the other three mentioned here are regional sports networks in New York City. - Silent Wind of Doom 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the phrase "year round" needs to be added after "only". Michael Greiner 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

New pictures

The new pics look great (spare the MLB sticker in most of them). I hope they're legal to use. Sportskido8 17:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• They should be. They're all promotional pictures taken by the team and owned by the team and/or MLB. Those are legal according to the promotional pictures template. - Silent Wind of Doom 22:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The pictures have the logo and the cap insignia, but they dont have the jersey insignia which is different than the cap. if someone could put that in that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.142.48 (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Another GA-nom

I nominated the article for GA status, and I think it can pass this time. At least the prose is pretty good now. Sportskido8 07:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This article certainly has the potential to be a good article but there are still a few issues I have with it.

1. I'm someone who doesn't follow baseball and as far as I know thing such as -

Notably, they have faced every winner of the National League pennant in the World Series except for the Houston Astros, who won their first pennant in 2005. No other team has come close to matching this feat.

I'm assuming that I can source this with a list of World Series matchups, because that's enough of a justification. I will add that. Sportskido8 17:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

and

some consider the team to be the best in the history of baseball

Referenced. Sportskido8 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

could be false. Make sure all material that could be challenged as inaccurate has a citation.

1. Some the language is a bit 'flowery' for an encyclopedic entry and could do with toning down.
2. All non-free images (including logos) require a fair use rationale.

Fixed this. Every image has one now. Sportskido8 17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly a very broadly written article with a lot of potential, I would suggest placing the article up for a peer review, which doesn't appear to have been done before, so that other editors can give their suggestions on improvements that could be made. Good luck. PanthersGirl 16:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was placed up for peer review a while ago and many of the observations have been dealt with. I think you may be looking for FA-quality in a GA nomination, because the prose is very coherent and detailed and most of it is referenced where it needs to be. It would be better if this could have been placed on hold because these are minor things and I fixed a lot of them already. Sportskido8 17:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Logos

There are still some problems with the logos section. Several of the captions are incorrect - the current jersey logo, for example, does not date back to 1936, as seen in this 1942 game-used Rizzuto jersey[6]. Similarly, this card shows that the current print logo was used as a cap logo in the 1950s[7]. I know that sportslogos.net has them listed this way, but that site is obviously in error, errors we do not need to perpetuate here. I'm going to remove the dates from these items, leaving only how they are used now. If anyone can catalogue exactly when each logo was used for each purpose, we can add the dates back in. --Chancemichaels 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

The logo was designed as an insignia and was struck onto a medal of honor issued to the first NYC Police Officer shot in the line of duty. The Yankees adopted it as their logo in 1909. (from a floor plaque on the path to the three original monuments in Monument Park in Yankee Stadium. Dcrasno 12:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the actual interlocking NY logo has been changed at least a half-dozen times. That's the point - trying to trace those variations, rather than incorrectly labelling the current versions as dating to a period to which they do not belong. For example, one cap logo is inaccurately labeled as being "1913-current" although it does not match the (actual) cap logo at the top of the article. I'm removing that particular notation. SixFourThree (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

Ron Guidry did not write the book the "Bronx Zoo" it was Sparky Lyle

The team's name is often shortened to "the Yanks," and their most prominently used nickname is "the Bronx Bombers," or simply "the Bombers." A less used nickname is "the Pinstripers." The organization is sometimes referred to by detractors as "the Bronx Zoo" (echoing the title of Ron Guidry's book) Replace with Sparky Lyle's

CCC 144.226.173.68 13:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. Baseball Bugs 17:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom Brady is a fan, to add under "Celebrity Fans" section

Shouldn't that fact that Tom Brady is a New York Yankees fan be mentioned under the "Celebrity Fans" section of this article? It has certainly been noticed and noted that Brady has, even as late as the year 2007, wore a New York Yankees baseball hat in public.

Find a source saying that he is a fan and we'll put it in. But I am highly suspect of this because he was born in San Mateo, California, not too far from San Francisco. Sportskido8 19:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No protection?

Why is this page not protected? It gets vandalized like at least 10 times every day. Sportskido8 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the same question. Michael Greiner 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to find an admin who's also a Yankees fan, and ask him for advice on how to request semi-protecting the page for awhile. It's worth a try, anyway. Baseball Bugs 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Start at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I think it's interesting that the page was protected until the last week. Michael Greiner 22:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No surprise at all. Wikipedia administrators have this obsession with having things only short-term protected, as if the IP address abusers are going to just magically disappear after a week or two. This is the inevitable product of the wikipedia philosophy of "the encyclopedia that any moron can edit" (paraphrasing). Baseball Bugs 22:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I requested another sprotect. I guess they'll give it to us. Sportskido8 07:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:Alison took care of it for the next month. Baseball Bugs 09:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - and less of the "him" stuff :) - Alison ☺ 09:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC) (not a baseball fan, sorry!)

This article is WAAAY too long!

I just noticed that this article checks in at a little over 108kb in length, which is two and a half times what it should be (40 kb at the most). Shouldn't this article be split? Dknights411 04:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, but for an article of this magnitude, it's kind of hard to decide what to split off. So who knows. Sportskido8 16:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a good-sized article. But we're not talkin' the Phillies here. This is the most successful professional sports team in North American history, if not in the world. There is some room that I could see. The Yankees' history naturally tends to break out along "eras", and perhaps that info could be spun off into separate articles, with just a quick summary and a link in the main article. Likewise for stuff like retired numbers and monument park (which really should be in the same article). In fact, that would be a good one to start with before getting carried away. It could be linked from both the Yankees and the Yankee Stadium articles, and shorten both of those lengthy writeups. Of course, if you split stuff out, a week later some yokel will propose merging them. So it goes. d:) Baseball Bugs 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Lakers article split its history section into a new article, and I'm under the assumption that a few other teams do the same thing. It wouldn't hurt to create a seperate Yankees history article, don't you think? Dknights411 04:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This topic is already being kind-of discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. I recommend you take it up there. Baseball Bugs 05:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Juventus FC have won more titles, for an example: 27 league championships, 9 Italian Cups, 2 Champions League victories, 1 Cup-Winners' Cup, and 3 UEFA Cups—a total of 42 significant trophies; they've also won two World Club Championships, which is two more than have ever been contested in baseball. Liverpool have 40 major titles (18 league championships, 7 FA Cups, 7 League Cups, 5 Champions Cups, and 3 UEFA Cups]]. Real Madrid have in turn won 30 league championships, 17 Copas del Rey, 9 Champions Cups, 2 UEFA Cups and a Spanish league cup for 59 major trophies, along with 3 World Club Championships. I don't think the Yanks will be catching up to all that anytime soon. Of course, the Yankees are hampered by being able to enter only one competition in a season, while soccer teams usually enter two, and sometimes three or four; Manchester United won three trophies in 1998-99: the FA Premier League championship, the FA Cup, and the UEFA Champions League, losing out only on the League Cup.

Just once, I'd like to see the Yanks take on, say, the Yomiuri Giants (29 titles) and the Kia Tigers (9 out of 22 championships) in some sort of tournament. The Yanks would probably wipe the floor with both clubs, but you can't say for sure until it's tested on the diamond. SWalkerTTU 10:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Yankees played the Yomiuri Giants in 2003 in Tokyo and won 6 to 2. You can't compare soccer titles to baseball championships. In soccer there are multiple titles a team can win in a single season. In baseball there is 1 champion per season. Also you commenting on the talk page as the article says the Yankees are the most successful team in North America. --Michael Greiner 14:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

One reason the article is too long is that one of the history sections is just too big. A crude analysis shows that most sections are 2 to 2.6 lines/year of coverage of the section. The exceptions: 1923-'35 at 4.1, '73-'81 at 5.1, '60-'64 at 7.9, '96-2000 at 8.6, and 2001-'07 at 11.3 lines/year of coverage. Now one could easily claim that these first 4 sections cover the most significant eras of Yankees history, all with multiple championships. Fair enough. The most recent section, with the most text/year of coverage of any section? No championships yet. There's a lot of fluff in this section, especially all the offseason arrivals and departures. Let's see if it can be whittled down a bit. Simon12 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's called "recentism", and it might be exacerbated by the fact that the Yankees have, in essence, "become" the old Red Sox, with resulting angst and wordiness by the team's followers. Baseball Bugs 00:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a little better, but there's still more to do.Simon12 01:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's a fine sized article. As someone mentioned above, it's probably the greatest team in sports history, and it's only going to get longer. The more information, the better. Termin8er850 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Yanks are the greatest team in baseball history, not sports history. That would likely be Real Madrid; cf. my other post. SWalkerTTU 10:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming one considers soccer to be a "Real" sport. The followers of Beckham's new U.S. team are probably wondering the same thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is completely unnecessary to detail the results of individual series of the 2007 season. This article is about the Yankee franchise; wikipedia is not CNN. (Jschager 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree, the 2001-present section is too long. Several highlights should be mentioned. Playoff appearances, record breaking moments whether they be Yankee records (Jeter passing Williams in certain hitting categories) or overall individual milestone records (A-Rod hitting #500), new players coming (if notable) and retirements of players (O'Neil, Martinez, Williams). The latter part seems a bit pro-Yankee POV written too...this coming from a Yankee fan. Arnabdas 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Visible Tattoos

In the uniform and dress code section, there is an unreferenced mention of a ban on visible tattoos. Scott Proctor and Brian Bruney both have forearm tattoos that are not covered by a blue band. Anyone have a reference for that, so it can be reliably put into the past tense, otherwise it should be removed. Jsh726 18:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

winningest

somebody put "The Yankees have been Major League Baseball's winningest franchise" Now I dont think winningest is a word...is it? correct me if im wrong please.Vandalfighter101 05:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's non-standard English, but it's in common usage. [8] Baseball Bugs 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone said that the Yankees only places in 2nd place twice in the Yankees early years in the 1900s. This is incorrect. The Yankees finished in 2nd place in 1904, 1906, and 1910.

• You're right. 1904, 92-59, 1 1/2 games behind the Red Sox. 1906, 90-61, 3 games behind the White Sox. 1910, 88-63, 14 1/2 games behind the A's. Baseball Bugs 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1910 isn't part of the 1900's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.101.211 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's part of the "early" 1900s (taken as a century, not as a decade), i.e. before 1921 in this case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Split

I spun the Bleacher Creatures section off into its own article (it was suggested that it should be shortened in the peer review, so I figured this would be a good idea). It makes this one shorter, and it also gives an important topic its own spotlight, I guess. If anyone wants to help out with that one it would be appreciated. Sportskido8 08:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Many of the images used in this article are inappropriate. Some lack fair use rationales, which I have tagged. Others have inappropriate fair use rationales (at least one), which I am 99% sure should be deleted. Image:Casey_Stengel_Time_Cover.jpg's license states, "Note: It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image. Such usages will be removed." I'm pretty sure that's saying it can't be used in the way it is being used in this article. These need to be corrected in order for the article to retain GA. Lara♥Love 02:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

should their be a section on how the Yankees change the business of baseball

somewhere were they mention the Msg Deal, addidas deal, and the yes network.

Good article review

The article has been delisted per the discussion, now in archive, found here. Contact User:TonyTheTiger on or after August 9 and then renominate at WP:GAC and he will review. Regards, Lara♥Love 16:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson

Isn't number 42 retired by the yanks? >-{ Brandonrush }-<

Not yet as Mariano Rivera is still wearing the number as part of a grandfather clause. Currently it is only honored. --Michael Greiner 16:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was retired even though Rivera wore it...my fault. >-{ Brandonrush }-<

It's not retired by the Yankees, but it is retired by MLB. Jackie Robinson's number is honored, but the Yankees will most likely retire the number for Mariano one day. --Goodfellajohnny 17:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The number is retired across the MLB. Anyone who had that number before it was retired it grandfathered in and can continue to wear it. Nobody younger is able to. IrishGuy ^talk 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of winningest

I think there has to be a better word than this. It sounds a bit awkward. I know "most successful" would be too general, but maybe the structure could change. Suggestions?

Darkfate 17:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Winningest" as a frequently-used colloquialism. "Most successful" works for me, and I just changed it. Anybody who wants to call that POV had better look up the meaning of the word "success". Baseball Bugs 17:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Winningest" was more specific though. The Yankees are a business, "most successful" could easily mean "most profitable", though I suppose that's also true. APL 05:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You could research the business angle if you want to pre-empt that argument. However, the fans don't care about that, they care about winning, and without fans there is no business. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Yankees won an AL record 110 games with only 44 losses"

This is no longer an AL record. The current record is 116 games with 46 losses, set in 2001 by the Seattle Mariners. It's not even a record for highest winning percentage (110-44 = .714 and 116-46 = .716). I don't know if the 110 win record was broken prior to 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.39.174 (talk) 17:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

It was then. I made a correction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Cleveland Indians had broken the record with 111 wins in 1954. They lost the Series. Cubs still hold modern record percentage with 116-36 in 1906. They lost the Series. Seattle didn't even get to the Series in 2001. Yankees won 114 in 1999 or 2000 or whenever it was. They won the Series. Apparently winning a whole mess of games only leads to a Series win if you're the Yankees. :\ Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Champions

I put in a line at the bottom of the lead which stated that the Yankees were current American League East Champions. This is present in many champions leads, and I'm trying to standardize the leads, so could someone tell me why it was deleted, and kind of a group consensus of whether or not sluch a line should be included in leads. --Silent Wind of Doom 06:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was standard procedure. So-and-so is current such-and-such champions. The Cardinals, current World Series champions; the Tigers, current A.L. champions. It's useful to know for someone who doesn't follow the game closely. You could put it back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yankees-Mets Rivalry Article

I am letting editors of both the Yankees and Mets pages know that there is a new article I created, Yankees-Mets Rivalry, that needs a lot of work. Would appreciate any help you can contribute to it. Thanks! Arnabdas 21:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames

I propose creating a separate section within the article to cover the team's obscure nicknames (e.g., "Pinstripers," "Bronx Zoo," "Evil Empire," "Damn Yankees") rather than recite them as a littany in the opening paragraph. It's out-of-place in the intro. A reader should not have to wade through 6 sentences covering all of the franchise's possible nicknames before learning any substantive information about the team.

The opening should mention the 'Yanks' shorthand and the 'Bronx Bombers' moniker, but that's it. The others should either be folded into the 'Critics' section, or a separate 'Nicknames' section should be created.-PassionoftheDamon 22:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How about "Can't Outlast a Swarm of Bugs"? (look at how all the players were swatting flies this game) 204.52.215.107 01:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and game 2 of the ALDS

The text reflecting game 2 of the 2007 ALDS is not neutral. This seems to be written with the point of view of a Yankees fan and needs to be changed. 76.188.28.174 04:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, and lines like "The game one loss didn't bother the yankees" need to be removed because it may (and probably did) bother some of the players. Also why is there so much information on 2007 ALDS anyway? The six Yankees world series wins in the 50's combined have much less information than this blurb on a division series. Why the bias on providing information on recent events that will become historical footnotes?

See WP:RECENTISM. --Michael Greiner 21:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

1999 ALCS

It won't let me edit the page, but the Yankees did not win in four games as there was a game 5, because, as the page states, Boston won game three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.26.29 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed. Thanks. --Michael Greiner 19:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

2004?

How come there's no section on 2004 and it's outcome? It covers 2003, then skips to 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.102.253 (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Michael Greiner 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

2004 should have been 1994, if you know what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesTabfield (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. (And I'm not sure if I want to.) --Michael Greiner 01:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Just joking that as a Yankees fan I wish 2004 ended like 1994 did; instead of the collapse in the ALCS -- the season would just end with no playoffs and us in first place. It was just a joke. Probably not the place for it, but it seemed to fit.

Merge Yankees Universe

Should Yankee Universe merged into Yankees, perhaps as a section in the article? --Brewcrewer 15:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The organization is notable enough for its own article in my opinion and this article is too large as it is. --Michael Greiner 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

agreed, do not merge, article is too large already Simon12 01:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The article needs work. After a good editing, there shouldn't be much left in the article. --Brewcrewer 12:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why these would be merged. I guess on this premise we should merge Yes Network in too. Not sure I agree with that. I think seperate is better as they are not the same entitiy and are connected only in name, not in business structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesTabfield (talk • contribs) 03:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The YES Network is a seperate entity. Yankees Universe is just a pop-culture neologism. --Brewcrewer 12:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yankees Universe is a charity benefiting Memorial-Sloan, not a random term. --Michael Greiner 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is every new company or charity just a neologism? The term has been around 7 years. The charity has been around at least 2 years. If you look, you will see Yankees Universe is a seperate entity from The New York Yankees.TunaWuna 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yankee fans in New York

The number of yankee fans in new york has greatly rose. Everyone thinks because the mets are based in queens there are more met fans but if you go to the western part of queens such as middle village, ridgewood, glendale, ozone park, howard beach, maspeth, jamaica you will see that there are more yankee fans than mets especially italian americans who idolize joe dimaggio and other italian american players that were on the yankees. Brookln also has more yankee fans and especially staten island who has the yankees minor league teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza88 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

The article says that the Yanks are the only team with HOF players at every position. I'm curious about the source and the criteria on which that is based. The Baseball Hall of Fame site doesn't list any player whose primary position was third base and who was inducted as a Yankee. According to that site, the only HOF third basemen who have played for the Yankees are Wade Boggs and Frank Baker, both of whom played most of their careers elsewhere, and neither of whom was inducted as a Yankee. By that kind of measure, the Red Sox (for example) also can put together a Hall of Fame team: Carlton Fisk (c), Jimmie Foxx (1b), Bobby Doerr (2b), Wade Boggs (3b), Joe Cronin (ss), Ted Williams (lf), Tris Speaker (cf), Harry Hooper (rf), and Cy Young (p). Speaker and Young were both inducted as Indians, but each spent more time with Boston than either Boggs or Baker spent with New York. If the criterion is merely that a team have a Hall of Famer who played the position for them at some point in his career, then an awful lot of clubs (Dodgers, Giants, Braves, Athletics, and probably many others) can they have one at every position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.36.36 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for the source for the HOFer statement- though I don't beleive it's correct either, as only Paul Molitor has been elected as a Designated Hitter. --Yankees76 21:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that truism before, and it's obviously not true. I don't see any point in looking for a citation for something that's demonstrably false. It should either be removed, or refuted directly so someone won't think about adding it again. Regarding Baker, he's better known as an Athletic, but he spent nearly half his career with the Yankees. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are basing that on the way the caps look, that's really lame. And Baker went in with an A's cap on his plaque, not a Yankees cap. (There is no logo, but the A's wore a flat-top, striped cap ca. 1909-1914, while the Yanks wore a round, plain cap during the late teens). [9] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And Boggs' plaque has the Red Sox "B". The third basemen in the Hall are Frank Baker, Wade Boggs, George Brett, Jimmy Collins, George Kell, Fred Lindstrom, Eddie Mathews, Brooks Robinson, Mike Schmidt and Pie Traynor; omitting the Negro Leagues players here, as obviously they never played in the white major leagues. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Left Field is also a problem for the Yankees, as Winfield has Padres cap on, although the HoF does list his "primary team" as the Yankees. I would also note that Detroit comes very close to meeting the critera, as they do have people with Detroit caps at every position. The hitches are that Hughie Jennings is in as a Detroit manager, although he did play a little shortstop for the Tigers, and LF Heinie Manush has a Tiger cap on but his primary team was the Senators. In any case, depending on your definition, either multiple teams have every position represented or no teams do. It's time for the claim to go. Simon12 02:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Change owner from "George Steinbrenner" to "The Steinbrenner family"

Because, lets face it, George no longer owns the Yankees on his own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernierules51 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Yankees web site says George is still the Principal Owner. Until there is something official, George should remain the only owner in the article. Simon12 01:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

S.I. says George is turning over day-to-day operation of the club to his sons. That only tells me they work for him, it doesn't tell me they collectively own the team. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

joba and the bugs

In the 2007 ALDS , Joba chamberlain was more than "bothered" , throwing wild pitches ,etc. and allowing a run without giving up a hit. I would say he practically couldn't see with the bugs on his face and eyes , and Joe Torre says now he should have had the game stopped. Also, weren't they "midges" or "Canadian Soldiers", as the TV announcers claimed? thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandora (talk • contribs) 02:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Falling short" vs. "A-Rod era"

That places too much blame on A-Rod and gives too much credit to Torre. In fact, the Yankees' annual post-season choke-fest began in 2001. The paragraph would be better titled "Falling short - the 21st century so far". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I originally titled the section 01-07: "October Failures". "Falling Short" is just as good. 01-03 is much more like 04-07 than 96-00. And if we give Torre and Jeter credit for 96-00 in the title, they deserve to be in the title for 01-07. Rivera also. Years from now, they will be the 3 Hall of Famers who defined the 96-07 Yankees. I'm going to be bold and change it back. Simon12 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sehr gut. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think changing it to "Post-Season Disappointment" is a more appropriate title. "Falling Short" has more of a negative connotation because it still takes away from the team's accomplishment of making the post-season every year and having what probably is the best record in that time frame. Arnabdas 16:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The dilemma is that "making the post-season" is not what it's about for the Yankees. They begin every year with a goal of winning the World Series. Hence "falling short". However, that's also a slangy expression. "Post-season disappointment" could work. Either way, it adds up to not reaching their goal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A few things here, as I've done the things in question. First of all, I changed the title to "Falling Short" because I thought "October Failures" was too negative. "Falling Short" denotes a valiant effort, but just not being able to reach the goal. It is also short and concise. I think that "Postseason Disappointment" has a bit too much of a negative and depressing tone.

Also, the distinct change in the Yankees came about in 2004. In 2001, they still made the World Series, and had a stirring battle with the Diamondbacks, but were shut down by the pitching of Randy Johnson, Curt Shilling, and, unfortunately, Mariano Rivera. 2002 was a fluke, in which they lost first round to a team which they struggled against and who eventually won the world series. 2003 they beat the Red Sox in a great series and then went on to be bested by the Florida Marlins and a wonderful performance by Josh Beckett. They were still making the World Series and they were still getting good postseason results. These truly were still a part of the glory years, not that the last few years haven't been glorious as well. In 2004, they suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Red Sox, and saw an early exit the next three years. This is a big difference from 2001-2003, which I think deserves more to be a part of 1996-2000.

Finally, this also coincides with the A-Rod era. Now, I don't suggest that he's linked to the change. Mattingly's era is called "Fallen Glory", but he definitely did nothing to cause that state. However, positive or negative, A-Rod has become a big part of this team. His inclusion should be mentioned in a heading, and I think this fits perfectly. Yes, it was still Torre and Jeter's team, but plenty of the times of the namesakes of the eras mentioned here overlap, just as in this case.

I worried about listing too many when putting in Rivera, because Rivera isn't as much a superstar as Torre and Jeter, and once you put in important features that aren't superstars, you start getting into Bernie, O'neill, Posada, and possibly even Brocius, Pettite, and Tino, all of whom contributed signifigantly in these years. Now, I love Rivera, and he's one of my favorite players, but I'm not sure if it fits. I'm also extremely against naming two headings the same thing, put with a roman numeral two after it. It just seems cheesy, and there's got to be a better way. - Silent Wind of Doom 02:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First, as the creator of "October Failure", I like "Falling Short" better. But then, the fact is, is that they did fall short from 2001-2003. The reasons don't matter, just the results, which did not meet the Yankees goal. I think 01-07 still makes sense. Second, how can you say Rivera is not a superstar. He will be in the Hall of Fame and is arguably 1 of the top 2-5 relief pitchers of the "closer" era. (Eckersley and I don't who else fits in the category). None of the other players you mention will be in the Hall of Fame (I suppose maybe Posada if he's around another 10 years), and none of the other players you mention were on the team the full 12 years from 96-07, so there is a clear dividing line between Torre, Jeter, and Rivera, and everyone else.

As for the I vs II, part of the problem is trying to end everything with "Era". I like they way the sections were standardized, but I'm not sure it works here. I'm going to try something - feel free to modify it further, and note that the Bronx Zoo section has the names first. Simon12 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yankees home uni.png

Image:Yankees home uni.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 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yankees road uni.png

Image:Yankees road uni.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 23:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

2008 All-Star Game Logos

There are two logos for the 2008 All-Star game, one general and one Yankee specific with "Yankees" in script.

I've changed the logos used in this article to the Yankee branded ones, while left the ones in the article about the All-Star game the general logo. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ALE-NYY-Logo-Old02.png

Image:ALE-NYY-Logo-Old02.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 00:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of New Yankee Stadium section?

Let's see, 2 full paragraphs on a building that isn't open yet, and nothing on the most famous sports building in the country, the current Yankee Stadium? A little out of proportion? I propose removing the whole section, with the current text and link in the 2008 section being sufficient for this article. Simon12 03:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it's wrong to be excited about a new stadium being on the horizon. However I tend to agree with the statement that it doesn't deserve as much coverage on this page as the cathedral that is Yankee Stadium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccellini2000 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Old Uncle Sam Logo?

Say, does anyone happen to know what the year was when the logo changed from the light blue brim to the current white brim? It would help out with being more accurate, and would allow me to add the blue brim logo in the article. I know it was used at least on the jackets during 77 and 78, but I don't know the exact year that the change was made. -Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Steroids

Shouldn't there be some inclusion of the fact that 9 players from the Yankees 2000 championship team were accused of using steroids and hgh in the Mitchell Report? It's not fair that they won, and there should be some mention of the fact that they were cheating... they were cheating (from what we know...) far more than any other team in baseball. Let's just be up front with that information.

Not all players were using steroids at the time, or even as a member of the Yankees. Players in the report allegedly took the drugs, and we will probably never if the allegations are true or not unless the players come out and directly say they took the drugs. Anything say the Yankees shouldn't or wouldn't have won is considered Original Research which is strictly prohibited. --Michael Greiner 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal Apperance

Who is meant by this section:

There have been some defiances of the dress code, however. The most notable incident involved pitcher Goose Gossage, who had a Fu Manchu mustache in deliberate defiance of George Steinbrenner. Jackson, though he currently spots only a mustache as a "special assistant" with the organization, did have a full beard during parts of his stay with the Yankees.

Who is "Jackson" who "spoted" a mustache in the third sentence? Reggie Jackson? I wasn't sure or else I would've added it myself. Brandonrush (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hector Lopez

Can anyone tell me if this is Hector Lopez. Please drop a note on my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not likely. Hector the ballplayer is in his high 70s. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's his baseball card from 42 years ago. [10] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)