* Congratulations, and Thank you for your brilliant work on Wikipedia! We really appreciate it! Editors like you keep our encycopedia interesting and complete! [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 13:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
* Congratulations, and Thank you for your brilliant work on Wikipedia! We really appreciate it! Editors like you keep our encycopedia interesting and complete! [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 13:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
::Again, thanks so much everyone!<span style="background:#03298a;color:Cyan;padding:1px 4px;">[[User:Delaywaves|<span style="color:White;font-variant:Small-caps;">'''''Delaywaves'''''</span>]] • [[User talk:Delaywaves|<span style="color:Lime;font-size:80%;">talk</span>]]</span> 02:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
You wrote to me: "Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to the page List of Major League Baseball players with 1,000 runs batted in appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Delaywaves • talk 00:08, 21 June 2012" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.7.201.2 (talk)
December 2011
Hi delaywaves, I've been studying baseball articles on Wikipedia and the impact of baseball report on the quality of the images on Wikipedia. I would like to interview you for my study. Do you think I could give you a call at some point?
Can you email me at nagaraj AT mit DOT edu, or leave a reply on my talk page? Thanks!
Hello, Delaywaves, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
You might consider adding something (anything) to your WP:User page. It will get the red out of your name in edit summaries. This confers some subtle benefits, as you will find out. If I can be of assistance, please let me know. Best to you and happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nifty photo from 1961. The source,[1] lists the various pols surrounding JFK. But they overlooked someone important, who would figure significantly in the 1961 season. Can you spot him? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing him. I'm talking about Commissioner Ford Frick, who's straight up from Mike Mansfield and slightly obscured by him. Frick would screw the most fascinating thing about the season by deciding that Roger Maris needed to hit 61 within 154 games (instead of 162) or else Maris would get an "asterisk" next to the new record. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a terrific addition to that article! Isn't it something how those houses look just the same today as when the TV cameras used to pick up Callison's and Allen's HRs bouncing off them. Thanks for posting. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, man — the Brush staircase is too cool, and a great photo, too, with the leaves and some of the concrete gone. Nice work, and thanks for steering me to it... I never would have found it myself. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
June 10 — I moved the 1955 photo to the right because it made a big swath of empty space on widescreen monitors when it was on the left. Regards — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Duke Snider color.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Photos
While I like very much, most of the photos you've been adding, the few that are taken from TV/film are not really suitable. Just thought I'd mention this before someone else does. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "not suitable" I mean they are too blurry. I found that if I shrink them down to postage-stamp size, they look less blurry - but that kind of defeats the purpose. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're free, and I guess they can stay in the articles, but someone might complain less nicely. Just a friendly caution. :) There is a risk that someone will bluntly state that they have to go due to quality. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I noticed in particular are these:
Even at postage stamp size, they're rather indistinct. Because of the need for free content, there is a lot of tolerance for amateur snapshots and such. But it's possible someone's going to come along and say these are not suitable even as free content. If you want to invite trouble, you could take these to the baseball project page and get some opinions. In contrast, the LoC stuff is great, priceless. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to get into any trouble over these items. The worst that can happen is that someone will nominate for deletion on the grounds of poor quality. Then you can make a case for them, if you care to. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Delaywaves, I must agree with Baseball Bugs about the usability of those fuzzy shots. There are a few dozen great Shibe shots in The Bain Collection at the LOC and they're all public domain — though they're teens and '20s and therefore all A's and no Phils. You might want to take a look. if you haven't already. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. This is a terrific set of 4x5 negs taken after Shibe was abandoned. I think they'd make a terrific gallery of their own: "Gallery: The Final Years". Being large format, they're super quality. Best of all, they're all PD under HABS. I'll help with/take care of the uploading, if you like the idea of the separate gallery. What do you think, Bugs? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the Bain pics are already in use. Some of the exterior shots in your second link are really good, detailed closeups of the architecture. Mr. Shibe and Mr. Mack really put some thought into the initial design, and maybe the article needs more on that, at least implicitly. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, those abandoned photos are great! I've never uploaded licensed photos from other sites like that, do you just submit whatever license they had on the website to Wikipedia? (If that makes any sense.) And yes, those Bain photos are already in use. About to try my new signature for the first time... Delaywavestalk 01:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many (but not all) collections at the Library of Congress that are public domain, and there are templates you enter in the "Permission" block at Commons and the system supplies the verbiage. Would you like me to upload the nine photos? I'd be glad to help. I only ask that we put the nine in their own gallery. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go right ahead with these new photos. When you say, "their own gallery," would that mean that on the Shibe Park page, there would be another gallery after the first one that just contains these? I guess that sounds fine. Would you mind telling me just how you uploaded these, once you do? I'd always like some more editing advice. Delaywavestalk 02:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A separate gallery for architectural features, yes? Does the article say what the architectural style actually is? To me it looks a bit like Italianate, but I am no expert on such matters. Another point: Note the twisted steel beams visible in some of the photos. They must have been taken after the fire that caused a lot of damage to the interior of the park, I think it was August of 1971 but I'm not sure. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon: of course they're public domain. What do you take me for? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs, were you accusing me of subterfuge, or was it ineptitude? You might want to brush up on the basic facts of HABS — I did supply a link to the HABS photos, did you bother to read it? — before suggesting that another editor would try to upload under false pretenses. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm just paranoid about the deletionists on wikipedia, who will look for any excuse to delete something. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delaywaves, I'm glad you like the 1973 photos — and I'm sure you see why they really need their own gallery. As for the title I slapped on the first gallery, it's just a place holder; feel free to put a better one on. I searched high and low for a PD image of the Eagles playing at Shibe to use in that section, but only came up with the same couple you always see, and they're both copyrighted and don't show much of the park anyway. There were photos taken inside the place — not by the HABS project — and frankly, they're really depressing: there are small trees growing on the field, and the second floor stands dangle down crazily from the fire damage. There's none of the grandeur and dignity of the exterior shots. Anyway, glad you like and feel free to rework the Gallery 1 title. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, I didn't upload the aerial shot because it's a photograph of a photocopy; the contrast is way through the roof, and the quality is really poor. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: well, we're together about that, the deletionists I mean. One of the many things critically wrong with this noble, but fatally flawed, exercise. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delaywaves: Yes, all those terrific Memorial Stadium photos are public domain because they're all part of the HABS project. (Note: like most HABS images, they need cropping at the edges, which you must do before uploading them.) If you need a primer in uploading HABS (or any LOC) images, just ask. BTW, I saw a no-hitter in Memorial Stadium when my son and I went to say good-bye to the place in August of its final summer, '91 or whenever it was; Wilson Alvarez of the ChiSox threw it against the O's. Only no-hitter I ever saw in person. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs and Delaywaves: If we all answer on the same page, and always at the very bottom, not tucked up higher where it's easy to overlook, it makes for the most cohesive conversation. I nominate this page, which is on my watchlist. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As long as Delay is OK with it. FYI, I added a little bit of text to the two galleries. I also changed gallery 1 to chronological order. If you think it looks poor, feel free to revise. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs and Harrington: Yep, that sounds fine. Here's the first memorial stadium photo, does it look OK? There aren't too many more on the site that I think are very useful, but there are a few. I wish I was alive to see games at all these old ballparks, even boring ones like Memorial Stadium. Cool story about Alvarez, Harrington, I have tickets to a Yankee game in about a week that could coincide with Jeter's 3000th hit. That would be amazing. Delaywavestalk 20:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harrington: How did you know that the Shibe photos were taken in '73? Did it say somewhere on the site, or was it just inferring? I had to guess about the Memorial Stadium one, I just said circa 2000. Delaywavestalk 20:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: It looks great! The photo is great and your upload is impeccable. There's two other buttons to "press" next to the one with the old bellows camera, one button is the paperwork that makes the bldg significant and the other is details of the shoot. They most often (though not always) give the date, and sometimes the photog's name, which is nice to add in the "Author" field along with the HABS when you know it. Nice work. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: I removed the two lines you added to the two galleries. The first one was self-evident, and the second is a topic that should be covered as a first paragraph under "History", not down in a gallery. BTW, I'm a bit skeptical of that website you cited. I think you were closer with your first guess that it was Italian revival, not French Prov as they said. Somewhere on that site they said that the Ballantine scoreboard at Shibe came from Yankee Stadium and I'm pretty sure it was Ebbets. If we're going to do a proper upgrade to the "History" section, one of us needs to get access to the Kuklick book on Shibe. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harrington:Thanks, and I'm pretty sure the scoreboard was from Yankee Stadium. I think I've seen photos of it in each park and I've read about it in a few places. Delaywavestalk 20:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain it was from Yankee Stadium. I have the Kuklick book. I'll see what I can find. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs and/or Harrington: Do you guys know which street faced that big plaque/text/sign on the Memorial Stadium exterior? Was it 33rd street? On my last photo in the gallery, I just put "from street," but it would be good to say which one. Delaywavestalk 20:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the Kuklick book, p.28: French Renaissance. As to the scoreboard, in 1956, replacing one built in 1941, nothing said about where the board came from, p.130. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence Ritter's Lost Ballparks, p.185, states that the 1956 scoreboard came from Yankee Stadium. Here's a look at the board at Connie Mack:[3] Here's the old scoreboard at Yankee Stadium as it was in 1956:[4] And here's the Yankee Stadium replacement board under construction [5] no date given but obviously after 1956. The games on the scoreboard suggest early April, 1958.[6] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page[7] has a series of photos of the various Yankee Stadium scoreboards, chronologically but no years indicated. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Within this interesting collection of Ebbets Field photos[8] is a shot of their scoreboard, which I feel safe in saying is not the one that was sent to Philadelphia. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Photos Part 2
I opened a new section because the old one was getting ungainly. Bugs, I stand corrected on the architectural style, if Bruce K says it's French. Also stand corrected on Yankee Stadium being the source of the Ballantine board. It's good to be wrong twice in a row — keeps one humble. Delay, I checked LOC for actual dates and in this case there were none. Also, the general HABS code for these shots is MD-1111, but each image also has a suffix number like MD-1111-1. It keeps the WP Deletion Goons at little more at bay if you include that suffix number in the HABS template entry — lets 'em go right to the very shot when they check, and they do check.
How do you fellas feel about adding a first paragraph to the "History" section, mentioning the desolate nature of the block in 1906, the contracting of the design/construction company, the architectural style, the hoopla of the opening and the dazzling reviews the joint got, given its quantum-leap status. Nothing too lengthy, just a paragraph, but it seems like an important part of the story to me.
Finally, not to seem too anal, but what do you say we always keep the same indents in our discourse here — Delaywaves can be 0 colons, Bugs 1 colon, and I'll be two, and we'll always post at the very bottom. It'll make the conversation much easier to follow. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: Got it, after I put this next photo in the article I'll go back and add those suffix numbers, which I see now on the site. Delaywavestalk 22:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I uploaded all the photos I thought were necessary, but if either of you see any that you like, go right ahead. Delaywavestalk 02:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also on the site were some photos of Roosevelt Stadium, and I've uploaded one of them so far. The survey number for that was different from the Memorial Stadium ones, does the Roosevelt one look OK? Delaywavestalk 03:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again about Roosevelt Stadium, after all the abandonment photos there is this page, which shows some earlier ones from when the stadium was still in use. Can we not upload them, because we can't assume they were taken by the HABS, or are they OK? Delaywavestalk 03:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay, those HABS photos are just terrific. They have a wonderful melancholy quality to them, in a way that the Shibe photos did not have. I would urge you to remove the captions from them, on two counts: first, most of the captions are self-evident and readers kinda resent when you tell them something that's plain to anyone ("former concession stand"). More importantly, though, I think the explanations actually diminish the ghostly, sad atmosphere of the pictures. Imagine it if it were a TV documentary — you'd rather be alone with the memories in silence than have an announcer's voice tell you what you already knew, that it had been a locker room. It's your call, of course, but if it were mine, I'd pull 'em. Also, I'm concerned some goon or other will flag "Abandonment" as unencyclopedic. Might never happen, but if it does, remember where you heard it first. Anyway, the gallery looks real good! Your next stop at the LOC should be to check out The Bain Collection which has a bunch of baseball images, mostly from 1900-1925, but a lot from NY. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Delay,all HABS photos are public domain. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and Bugs: I couldn't resist posting a link to the best Shibe Park photo of all: the middle of the 9th in the last game the A's ever played in the place, September 19, 1954. Talk about an end-of-the world feeling! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Notice also the old Shibe scoreboard, flush with the infamous spite fence (except for the clock). Regarding Memorial Stadium, an abandoned ballpark is an incredibly sad sight, and while the pictures may speak for themselves to us fans, a minimal caption should probably be used for the benefit of those to whom it's less obvious. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs please use a single colon on all your postings, as outlined above. Then we all three have our own "groove". It really works out better. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, I'm not sure what your experience in publishing is outside of Wikipedia, but professional writers and editors the world over deplore the self-evident caption, which most of the present Memorial Stadium captions are. WP:CAPTION urges not to "detail the obvious." Perhaps Delay wants to retain captions in his gallery, it's his choice, but they really need to be touched up from what they are now. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs and Harrington: Okay, I removed a few of the photo captions, but I think it looks a bit stupid with only some of them having captions and some of them not. I kept some because there are a few that I think really help, for instance, I don't know if readers would notice the intertwining "RS" in the seat photo. Ditto for the Twin Towers in the last one. If you guys want to add better captions to the ones that I removed, that would be good. Delaywavestalk 14:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harrington: And as for the Memorial Stadium photos, do whatever you'd like with the captions. Personally, I don't think they really matter but I'm fine with anything you'd like to do. Delaywavestalk 15:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: Could you chill on the uploads for an hour or so? I just lost an hour's work to an edit conflict. Call me Harry, BTW — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delaywaves: I put in captions to your excellent photos at Roosevelt Stadium, all tight, carefully stacked and filling out their three lines. Hope you like 'em, but if you don't, feel free to whack away. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: I'm not at all opposed to photo captions — they're the most-read and first-read item on a page, even more than headlines (surprisingly). My point above was that the Memorial Stadium gallery shots were so ghostly and so ethereal and so compelling that they spoke more eloquently on their own than anything we could tack on them. Since Bugs thinks the captions bring something to the page, I'm not going to remove them, but I do think they should go. Also, I trimmed the title off the Roosevelt Stadium gallery — I really think you're asking for hassles from the Wikigoons with a dramatic title like that. I worry about the "dugout of baseball past" in the last RS caption — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: An hour of editing? Oh god, I feel terrible now. Hope it wasn't too hard to redo. This whole edit conflict thing is one of Wikipedia's biggest flaws that I've seen. Your captions on the Roosevelt photos are fantastic. I just added "faintly" for the Twin Towers one because I thought it might not be clear that they were actually visible in that photo. I dunno about the Memorial Stadium captions, maybe we could leave that to Bugs.Delaywavestalk 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: Fuggetaboutit, my own fault for not saving to the clipboard, which is my usual habit. The addition of "faintly" was good, but it forced a fourth-line "widow," so I tweaked it a little to fit it back into three lines. I tried to work in "foreground" and "on horizon," but they were too space-consumptive. The text of this article needs considerable work, but the history table reveals there are several editors with a lot of work invested, plus I have no sources. Don't forget we've also discussed a slight expansion of Shibe Park, but Bugs has the book, and I'm not sure he's on board with the expansion. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...serious editing/expanding is something I've never tried before; photos are really my thing. But I would be open to learning or giving it a shot. Delaywavestalk 02:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and Bugs: The paragraph I'm suggesting is easy-do: 1) Shibe wanted new park because Columbia Park was too small/inconvenient/whatever. 2) Insider info revealed to him that smallpox hospital, which had kept Swampoodle neighborhood desolate, was going to close, hence removing stigma. 3) Shibe buys land, hires Steele & Sons to design. By the time the park is done, smallpox hosp is gone. 4) Park, in French revival style, is showplace: first concrete-n-steel ballpark that redefines the standards of ballpark design and construction. 4a) Other notable architectural items. 5) Contemporary articles/voices hailing the place as quantum leap (a common phrase of 1909!) and city asset, etc. 6) Inaugural game 4/12/09 A's vs. [who?], score. (Baseball-reference.com only goes back to 1919.) Easy-do, but I don't have access to Kuklick's book, which I really need for cites and accuracy. It's been 20 years since I read it. Hey Bugs, are you on board with this?
Delay, I beefed up three captions at Gallery 1. Also: we're friends, both liberals, both Beatlemaniacs, both prefer NY-style pizza (and I'll bet you also are a folder of it as am I), so I must tell you straight: the 1950 WS shot is really too fuzzy to be of value, and the "rooftop bleachers" shot at the new park kinda don't fit in with Shibe pix. Would you consider removing them? What're friends for, right? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: That expansion sounds like a good idea. I was thinking this seemed like kind of an all-pictures-no-words article. About the 1950 WS photo: Is it that bad? Obviously when viewed full size it's a bit fuzzy, but in the context that it's used in the article I think it's okay. We only have one other real "full view" photo of Shibe, and that's the main one, which is low quality itself. (I dunno, you have more experience with deletionists than I do, so if you really think it's necessary, do what you must.) I'll take down the CBP rooftop bleachers photo; I just put that in because they had been mentioned previously in the article, but I suppose it would go better here. (I regret to inform you that I don't really fold my pizza. I suppose I've let my city down...) Delaywavestalk 19:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: oooooooh, this no-fold business is troubling. More important than letting your city down, you're letting yourself down by not folding. I might have to re-evaluate this relationship. On the serious side, though, I do really think the 1950 shot is that bad. WP:IG says: "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." Big size or small, the shot imparts no information because it has no information — it's too fuzzy. Just MHO, but it could be the chink that triggers a deletionist. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: Okay, the 1950 photo is gone. Baseball Reference does go back to 1909, btw, just not box scores. The first game was an 8-1 win against the Red Sox. Delaywavestalk 19:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: You did the right thing. What can I put on the pie I'm having sent over to you? Thx for the 1909 info. As soon as we get Bugs's agreement to fact check from Kuklick's book, I'll write the damn thing. I'd really like to avoid buying a second copy of the book. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: I found a used copy of Everything A Season for $5.33 incl. shipping, so I broke down and ordered it. Even if Bugs opts not to participate, with the book in hand, I can punch up the article in general. I'm sure there's other good stuff that'll make the article better (and make it feel less photo-heavy). Also, there's a PD photo of Mayor Hogue throwing out the first ball at Roosevelt Stadium in '46; you think I should upload it and put it in with the text (not the gallery) under the uncaptioned photo and next to the "Music" section? It's real evocative of the '40s. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: Cool, I'll be looking forward to seeing the changes. Sure, upload the Hague one, and putting it in the Music section sounds good to me; maybe also upload it onto Hague's article under the "Boss of Jersey City" section, there's only one photo of him there. Delaywavestalk 21:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a sort of unrelated note, I just came across a bunch of great photos taken of Sick's Stadium in Seattle. It says they're from the "Paul Hamaker Collection," which I assume is just a fancy way of saying some guy named Paul Hamaker sent them to the website. They would be a great addition to the Sicks article. Would this be an opportunity to do that OTRS permission thing? I've never tried that, have you? We could contact digitalballparks.com and ask for Paul Hamaker, I suppose... Delaywavestalk 21:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: Uploaded Hague shot to both spots, though I realize now I put it lower in Hague's article than your suggestion because of chronology. I have no problem if you choose to move it. As for Hamaker, Google didn't cough him up, so I figure you're right, he's just a pack-rat fan like us. You might try calling/e-mailing the website and inquiring about permission, but the two times I tried getting permission to upload from Flickr users were duds. I don't know what OTRS is, but I know the permission thing is difficult and cumbersome. You might choose one or two, then try using them with a non-free fair use rationale. But they'll have to be good quality and tell a story that you can argue in a fair-use rationale. Some of those Hamaker shots were pretty rough and were, umm, non-notable. One that did catch my eye was the Seattle Pilots team photo, which would be easy to argue for fair use at the Pilots article I think. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry:This is an example of the OTRS thing. I have absolutely no idea how to do it, but I think it involves getting permission from the author to use their work in a very specific manner. I'll contact the site about the photos, not just of Sick's Stadium, but of various others, like Arlington and K.C. Municipal Stadium. (Check those out on the site, there are some pretty cool ones.) They also credit some DVD of rare sports videos for some of the photos, like the ones they have of Shibe. I guess there's no possibility of using those, though, unless it was fair use. Delaywavestalk 22:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I emailed the site and asked for the contact of the Hamaker guy, a guy named Johnston who submitted a bunch of Arlington Stadium photos, and also whoever submitted the photos they have of Milwaukee County Stadium; I think they were taken by the site owners. I forgot KC Municipal, but that can wait. Delaywavestalk 23:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry/Bugs (if you're still reading this): Pretty minor, but according to Green Cathedrals by Phililp Lowry, "Many books have incorrectly stated that the old Yankee Stadium electric scoreboard was installed in front of the right-center wall here in 1957. Although the two scoreboards looked alike, the Yankee Stadium scoreboard was much larger, and it was not replaced by the tower scoreboard until 1959, two years after the electric scoreboard was installed here." Not too important, but I thought I might as well settle it. Delaywavestalk 20:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice photos! I like the Chief Bender one, looks almost like he's just staring down the batter...or maybe that's just his pitching motion. I came across a site that has a lot of Shibe photos, I got them by just searching "stadium," which is the search that that URL links to. Unfortunately, only one is pre-1923, this one, which I'll upload later. (Circa 1920 is treated as pre-1923, in what I've seen) Delaywavestalk 20:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Kuklick book, p.53, the expansion occurred in 1925. So anything showing the double-deck 3-quarters around is from 1925 or later. Also, check the vintage of the cars to get an approximate time frame. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on those 20 Temple U photos:
Unrelated.
Unrelated.
Unrelated.
1939 - Apr 8 - Lights. First night game was played May 16.
1952 - Apr 8 - Touching up the scoreboard.
Cute kitty.
1940 - Mar 30 - If true, it's pre-season. Note spite fence and clock just protruding above it. Also note renovated box seats and high corners in left and right foul ground.
"Unknown" - Spite fence in place, high corners in place, old scoreboard still there. So it has to be sometime between/including 1940 and 1955. The few visible cars look like late-40s/early-50s.
1956 - Oct 26 - Poorly rendered photo. And why they would be playing ball in late October is hard to tell. But if true, notice they still had the old scoreboard at that point.
1970 - Sep 27 - If true, it's just before the final series at the ballpark.
1972 - Note the effects of the 1971 fire.
"Ca. 1920" - Actually 1925 or later, as noted above.
1929 - Sep 15 - Near the end of a pennant season. Poorly reproduced - But note Baker Bowl in background.
1973 - Again note the effects of the 1971 fire. Also note how huge the newer scoreboard was.
1931 - Nifty photo, labeled, possibly connected with World Series. Note bleachers on the buildings, no spite-fence yet, east and west stand box seats not renovated yet, very small scoreboard.
1953 - "The ballpark with two names."
1939 - May 9 - Lights again. Note not-yet-renovated box seats, and square corner in center with slight "terrace" upslope.
1944 - Oct 27 - Presumably a campaign stop for FDR just before the election. Left field foul line 334 marker visible in background.
1952 - Apr 8 - Same date as other 1952 photo. Some good interior details.
1964 - August - Little did they know the Phillies were just weeks away from catastroph.
A bit of a general question: If you have two pieces of information from the same source, say, the same book, do you cite it twice in two different places? Delaywavestalk 21:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see now that the page recognizes 2 citations from the same source and puts the little "a" "b". Delaywavestalk 21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay:Most important: Do not upload any shots from that Temple Univ site that are from the Philadelphia Bulletin archive! Temple guards those photos jealously and you need a goddamn great rationale argument to post them here under fair-use. I'm familiar with that collection and there's nothing but trouble there. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, thanks for warning me in time. But doesn't copyright expire if a photo is pre-1923? Or does that circa-1920 thing change everything? Delaywavestalk 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's less a matter of copyright expiration, I think it was when the copyright laws were overhauled comprehensively. Just be sure that your "circa 1920" photo is definitively dated as pre-1923 somewhere, like, at some other website. Do a Google Images search and see if anyone else has it, then use that site as the source in your Commons upload form. The reason, by the way, that Temple patrols the use of those images is that they sell 'em, like Culver Photos or Getty Images or any other commercial stock photography/stock archive dealer. Why don't you pursue other, non-Shibe uploads for a week or two; once I get that book, I'll beef up the text, and with more text, there'll be more places to put in photos other than in galleries. They'll be more discreet, more topical and less likely to draw the attention of a deletion goon. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okey dokey. I added a couple minor facts about the Shibe scoreboard earlier, and right now I'll take down the assertion that it came from Yankee Stadium and replace it with a "contrary to popular belief..." Delaywavestalk 21:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that does look like a good book. I only suggested leaving it up to make it easy on you. The more I look at this article, the more disorganized I realize it is, and the more work it needs. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry/Bugs: I have two general questions for you guys: 1. If there's an article that had previously only had a fair use image but now has a much better free one, should the free one replace the fair use one? this is the article in question. Second question: What would you guys suppose the copyright is for this image? Or would it be a good fair use candidate? Delaywavestalk 23:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. If a free pic is better than a fair use pic, lose the fair use pic.
2. Can't determine copyright from the photo. You would need to write to them. One item says "ordering information". That would suggest someone owns it.
A's beat Red Sox 8-1.[9] Get on board with Retrosheet - it's the source for Baseball Reference, Baseball Almanac, etc., game logs. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Mostly I wanted y'all to be aware of Retrosheet, which is a great resource. They're still working on obtaining box scores and play-by-plays for the early years. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know Retrosheet well; I visit all the time! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shibe and Yankee scoreboards
In the picture book called Summer in the City: New York Baseball 1947-1957, on p.186 there's a picture of Yankee Stadium on Oct 2, 1957, Game 1 of the World Series. At that point, the older scoreboard is still in place. If the sources are correct about the new Phillies board being installed in 1956, obviously they are not the same board. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: Yep, I think we can consider that a closed issue now. Bugs/Harry: The "Green Cathedrals" book I'm reading has many photos of old, old ballparks. If I find a photo from, say, 1890, that would definitely be public domain and I would be free to photocopy/scan it, right? Delaywavestalk 00:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In theory. Although the deletionists might argue that you have to prove it was first published prior to 1923. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've uploaded photos without proof that it was published pre-1923 and never encountered any problems. I'll give 'em a shot. Delaywavestalk 01:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, if the photo looks old, especially 19th century, it probably won't get challenged. But there's no guarantee. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Buried in the footnotes of the Kuklick book, p.217 referencing p.130, the author says "there is no confirmation to the story that the scoreboard was the old Yankee Stadium one." It indicates that the Connie Mack Stadium scoreboard is discussed in the Philadelphia bulletin for May 16, 1956, if someone can find that somewhere. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know I read somewhere that that board came from Ebbets. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Ebbets board.[10][11] Same board visible during demolition.[12] This shot appears to be a World Series game, and since it says "Yanks here Sunday" it's no later than 1955.[13] Check out that centerfield distance: 376 feet. Can you say "bandbox"? This site labels photos from 1951 and 1957.[14] They look to me like the same board. Somewhat earlier versions of the board lacked the Schaefer sign. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: Just to thicken the soup, bear in mind that there can be more than one copyright involved. The photo itself may or may not be copyrighted, and then the scanner can also claim a copyright on his scan, particularly if he photoshopped it or colorized it or even just cropped it. I'm not sure how often it happens, but websites who make a big deal of "owning" a photo might be doing so because they feel they own the scan. When they block downloading or add watermarks, steer clear of it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another nifty website is called "baseball fever", and here someone has done a micro-study of the Yankee and Connie Mack boards, fairly well demolishing the idea that they're the same board.[15] Of course, given what we now know about the years, it's impossible anyway. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: The side-by-side photo comparison at baseball-fever.com seals it for me. So many differences — two different boards. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also question the statement that the Yankee board was the larger of the two. In fact, to me it looks like the Connie Mack board was the larger of the two. Since that comment is probably "original research" on our part, I think it's best to omit it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: Not original research, Green Cathedrals stated it very clearly. Although I guess that one fact isn't the most important one. Delaywavestalk 15:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave it out, as it's not terribly relevant. There is much stronger information that indicates they're not the same board, hence their relative size doesn't matter. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Clark Field Austin.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Clark Field Austin.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: You gotta be sure to choose some option in that "Licensing" box, or they'll be all over you like....— HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least I finally figured out where Clark Field actually was, which was hard to do thanks to misleading info on the UT website. It also turns out there have actually been three Clark Fields, the one with the double-decker outfield being the most famous. As far as crazy outfields are concerned, one that was nearly as bad was Sulphur Dell, or "Suffer Hell" as it was known to those who had to play there. But at least it didn't have cliffs, just terraces. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Photos 4
Guys: If you don't post at the bottom you risk your contribution being missed. Seven new photos at 1914 World Series; wish the Fenway shots were a little — a lot — better. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs/Harry: A fair use question: A photo I've found appears on a few websites and all websites credit it to "Metro Nashville Archives / Green Hills." However, that photo isn't available directly from the archives online. Could I use it as fair use anyway, just from a different site? It's the third photo on this page. 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
As the Sulphur Dell page lacks any photos, you might be able to get away with it with a proper fair-use argument. Be aware that the original, which appears on that Sulphur Dell website, is much larger. So a small version of it is obviously called for. In fact, the large version on the Sulphur Dell Website (1600 x 1200 or so) is apparently no longer downloadable. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, the image is up. Should I put the info about Metro Nashville Archives somewhere in the fair use tag? Or is what I have now OK? Delaywavestalk 15:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't guarantee anything where photos are concerned on wikipedia, but if it were me I would add that fact somewhere in the description. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made quite a few text changes/additions, and rearranged a couple of photos. Mostly I tried to bring in more information about structure and dimensions. I'm sure it could use more work. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: Your reoganization read my mind — same stuff I wanted to do. I suggest removing the team names from two of the section titles, since there was an overlap period and neither section really mentions the exploits of the teams in the sections: "Athletics at Shibe Park" might become "Design, construction, expansion" (I'll expand the top of that when my Kuklick book arrives) and "Phillies at Shibe Park / Connie Mack Stadium" might become "Co-tenants and name change." I'd also like to add a brief section on the boxing matches and FDR's 1944 visit, after "Football" and before "Soccer." I might even risk a fair-use argument and try to get that FDR photo from Temple into it (despite my own advice to Delay not to tangle with that Temple archive). With the added length of your additions plus the ones I plan, we might have enough body text to redistribute the first photo gallery throughout the article and be less of a target of the deletionist goons. Also, the article is in critical need of better citations, which I'll also be glad to take care of once my book arrives. Nice job! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) I used the existing section headings as a guide. I'm not altogether happy with them, although there seem to be two distinctive eras, namely the glory years of the A's and the monopoly enjoyed by the Phillies after the A's split town. You could almost call them the "Shibe era" and the "Mack era" as the stadium names roughly coincide. But whatever. About FDR, the question is whether that was a "notable" visit, or just a routine campaign stop just a week or two before the election of 1944. For fair use, you would have to demonstrate notability, or the deletionists will be all over it. If it comes to that, a possible compromise would be to simply link to the photo. Since Temple presumably owns the copyright, I don't see why that would be a problem. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing worth mentioning about the name change, discussed in the Kuklick book, is that it wasn't just deference to the memory of Ben Shibe that made Connie Mack reluctant to have the stadium named for himself. The indication is that some Shibe family members still owned stock in the A's, and Mack didn't want to cause himself any additional problems. Apparently, once the Shibes were out of the picture altogether, the name change was finalized. It's funny that they put the Connie Mack sign up but "Shibe Park" was still visible in the stone carving.[17] Later they covered the stone carving with Connie Mack's name.[18] At that point the park was Connie Mack Stadium, and Connie Mack Stadium, for those who missed it the first time. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: My recollection of history is that FDR (who was sick and looked like hell) played the above-the-fray C-in-C until Dewey made a late-October charge which spurred FDR to make fewer than half a dozen appearances; Shibe was one of 'em. That's notable enough for me, at least as notable as some of the ones we have in there. When the text is in, I'll give it a try; it would be a good addition. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That picture appears (uncredited) in the Westcott book. However, that book was published by Temple University Press, so they apparently didn't feel the need to credit themselves. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: Awesome addition, I agree with Harry that the more text, the easier it'll be to spread out the photos and keep the delitionists away. I have a pretty good book on various ballparks, and maybe tomorrow I'll make sure there's nothing else about Shibe that's worth adding. Delaywavestalk 02:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which book? There have been several, and while many of them have copied from each other, they also have their own unique twist on things. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs and Delay: Do either of you use a regular-width monitor? Mine is a widescreen, and I'm trying to determine how much text space we have when we have photos left and right; left-and-right looks fine on my widescreen, but might be too tight on a regular one. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs:Green Cathedrals, by Philip J. Lowry. Seems to me like a book that has some of those unique twists, he has many facts but a few personal anecdotes as well. On the entry for Braves Field, now Nickerson Field, he mentions how in the '80s he went into the original grandstand, which still stands, and found an abandoned, overturned ticket booth with a 1930s Boston Braves schedule tacked to the wall. How unbelievable would that be? Delaywavestalk 02:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That it does. It's mostly facts, but also some "original research". One thing we need to do is to get some dates pinned down. The article says the spite fence went up in 1933. But the pictures I saw yesterday indicated 1935. So I don't know which is right. My work on the article was to try to make a chronological list of changes, but some of it I had to fudge on because I'm uncertain of exact dates. For one thing, I know the pavilions were orignally open, and by 1913 they had a roof.[19]. One of the baseball fever pages has a document that I overlooked before, that answers some of the structural questions.[20] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the baseball fever page with the spite fence being built, labeled 1935:[21] ←Baseball Bugs One thing is that the fence supposedly being 50 feet high and then later reported as 32 feet is out of whack. The wall is 12 feet high, and looks it compared with the men. The 3 additional sections look like they make a total height between bricks and fence of no more than about 35 feet. Proportionally speaking, from photos from later years, that squares pretty well with the clock being 75 feet to the top, as the top of the clock is in the neighborhood of twice as high as the top of the spite fence. What's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: I have a normal Mac laptop, so I assume that's "regular". The text looks fine to me, no big white spaces or gaps.
I'm still on a 4-to-3 ratio screen, though maybe not for long, as I think it's dying a slow death. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and Bugs: I'd like to move the opening day 1909 shot from the gallery up right under the tower/cupola shot. Let me do it right now, then you check and see how it looks on your monitor. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The overflow crowd in left field? Looks good to me. I think the wide-angle shot from 1910 should come out of that gallery and into the text somewhere. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: I agree about the wide-angle. My goal is to move 'em all out of gallery 1. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To have Gallery 2 become simply The Gallery, right? You could move the plaque into the legacy section, and move the wide angle into the famous games section. Frankly, you could lose the other 2 or 3, as they don't really add a lot of new info. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Bugs and Delay: Check out article! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently wide enough that it forces me to scroll, so maybe it should be shrunk a bit. In any case, you could remove the duplicate entry in the gallery, which reduces gallery 1 (on my PC, anyway) to a single row of photos. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs and Delay: Do either of you mind if I delete the preposterous commented-out section about the apocryphal origin of "moonshot"? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Or I could do it, as I'm tweaking the facts a bit. About Dick Allen, I think it's cited in the article about him. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. Obscure and incorrect. Maybe Selma called it a moon shot, maybe not, but the original "Moon shots" were homers hit by Wally Moon in the abomination (for baseball) known as the L.A. Coliseum. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Bugs: how does the panorama look now? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and Bugs: I "hid" the last several photos from Gallery 1 until I do my own fiddling with the text, which I'll do the next couple days when my book arrives. I certainly want to retain the 1910 closer view of the 20th St rooftops, and also the 1914 exterior shot of 21st and Lehigh. But it's best not to figure out where to shoehorn without first finishing the text. Delay, you've been quiet — you okay with the turn this project has taken? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yes I am okay with it! It looks great, I added one minor fact from my book and I think that's all I have for now. Now I'll scan my book for info about other parks. I may upload another photo I took on my trip to Shibe's site last month. (Not to any page, just to Commons.) Delaywavestalk 02:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see that photo. :) Also, I wonder if there's any photographic evidence to back up the statement about home plate getting moved back for awhile to make the outfield deeper? I don't think there was any mention of it in the Kuklick book. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a shot of a groundsman "resetting" home plate with a spirit level at the Evening Bulletin archive at Temple U, but it's dated April 3, 1963. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs and Delay: I opened a hidden section for my own use gathering notes and cites before "bringing them public" in the "History" section; it's the easiest way for me and doesn't leave half-done stuff flapping in the breeze for visiting readers. Just in case you saw it and thought what the hell is this? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Photos with permission from creator
Permission from an image creator (or rights holder) that allows its upload to Commons comes with a release of rights to the level permitted by Commons, the email for which has to be archived by OTRS as it is in the case of the Drake Hogestyn photo. It's often easier, in those circumstances, to go with no-rights-reserved rather than CC-GFDL because the latter requires changing the license at the point of original publication.
We haven't allowed with-permission images for a little over six years now. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In effect, we'd be asking the owner to let us upload his photo and then make it public domain. Right? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although that's backwards. The release has to come first. I usually ask people if they assent to the language of {{PD-release}}, then make sure the forwarded email has that language plus their acknowledgement thereof. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, Harry: Starting a new section because that other conversation I was having sort of messed everything up. I uploaded a photo yesterday of the Washington Park wall in Brooklyn, although right after uploading it I read a pretty good page explaining that it's probably not original...oh well... Are you guys planning any more major additions/expansions to Shibe? Has your book come yet, Harry? Delaywavestalk 21:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, Harry: Whoa, just found an awesome web site, it has aerial views of NYC dating back to 1924. They're from a .gov site, but only Federal Government stuff is public domain, right? Would this stuff be copyrighted? Delaywavestalk 21:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: I dunno if you've ever found your way to this page, but scroll down to the United States section — it's a pretty comprehensive list of all the fed gov stuff that's PD, and the templates you need to mark 'em. That gis.nyc.gov has a copyright notice right on its opening page. Still fiddling on Shibe in a hidden work area. My book came this morning, plus I found some other good sources. I'll leave a note here when it's all done and up. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: I uploaded couple more of those photos I mentioned awhile ago of my trip to Shibe's site; I really don't think they're anything too special. They're the last three here. Delaywavestalk 04:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They look fine to me. :) I wonder how many of the folks in those flats know anything about the history across the street from them. I could imagine someone might gripe that there are too many "similar" photos in the gallery. Juxtaposing current photos with older ones is the way to go, I think - if such can be found. I like seeing "remnants" of the past that still exist. An your side trip by the Baker Bowl site, you may have noticed that the tall, triangular building in the background of many of the Baker Bowl shots is still there. And you were the one[22] who pointed out that the triplet little buildings behind deep left center field at Hilltop Park in New York still stand. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and Bugs: I put up a chunk of text at Shibe. There's still a lot to go: additions to "memorable games" and "home runs", the Mack statue item reinserted in a more appropriate place, discussion of Carpenter's reluctance, but no options, to buying the place post-A's, decline of the neighborhood/parking probs, etc. Lotsa stuff. Also many cites to find. I'll be back in a while to do more. Hope you both like. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either of you have any sources about the "City Series" of exhibition games played for years between the A's and the Phils? Of the 101 games, the A's won 53. Would make a nice entry in "Memorable games" section if we could find out more about it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least a token article on City Series (Philadelphia), which has a number of references that might lead to something good. It says they played pre and post-season series, which might account for that alleged Oct 26 photo at the Temple site. You might at some point want to get the baseball project folks involved in the discussion, especially if you've got Featured Article status in mind eventually. I can think of a number of experts, especially User:Killervogel5. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, check this photo out. (Doesn't necessarily have to contribute to the article, I just thought it was interesting.) I never realized how Shibe's rooftop bleachers were so organized - I always thought it was just a bunch of people sitting around, but there's a serious grandstand up there. Delaywavestalk 23:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what's the deal with Getty Images? If a photo says the license is "rights-managed," and the restrictions only say "no commercial or wireless uses without permission," it's still copyrighted, right? Delaywavestalk 23:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Getty Images is a stock photo house. Their permission costs you money. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which means we can't use it, as it's unlikely they would re-license it as public domain. That's why they have their watermark plastered over the middle of it. Those bleachers are something. Check this out,[23] from the Temple collection, and you'll see those same bleachers. I have no clue, but I wonder if they were given permission to build them for the World Series, just as they built bleachers in the streets for the Cubs Series of 1929, 1932 and 1935. Connie Mack wouldn't likely have cared, since the revenue from the post-season goes primarily to the Commissioner's office. But he certainly would have cared during the regular season. That's what happened with the Cubs. When folks gathered on their rooftops and watched the Cubs games for free, nothing was said. But when they started building bleachers out there, the Cubs management cried foul. Unlike Mack, the Cubs negotiated with the neighbors (and probably brought in some city building inspectors while they were at it), and established a cut for the Cubs. One other point about that picture you linked to: Note the alleyway behind the rowhouses. As per a story in the Jenkinson book, told by an eyewitness who was on the rooftop, Babe Ruth cracked one that went over everyone's head and into that alleyway. That boy George could hit! ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: Yep, that was me who pointed out those Hilltop buildings, although I wouldn'tve noticed if it weren't for a comment I saw somewhere on Flickr. I've tried a couple times to see the old Hilltop Park plate site, but the garden in which it's located is being renovated. I forgot to look for that triangular Baker Bowl building, although I had a feeling it might've still been there. I have the same love for old things that still exist; have you heard about the John T. Brush stairway? A pretty classic example. Delaywavestalk 01:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You posted those Brush Stairway photos too, didn't you? I'm surprised the city hasn't condemned it as being unsafe. But being the neighborhood it's in, maybe nobody has any clout or nobody cares. Another remnant, so to speak, which I think you brought up also, is that old mansion that was visible in old pics of the Polo Grounds and which still looks out over Coogan's Bluff. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've asked Killervogel5 to take a look at the Shibe Park article when he gets a chance. He's on a Phillies project team, so I would think this article would be of interest. If you all have notions of getting it to Featured status, they might be able to provide some good advice. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To get to the building across from the Baker Bowl site, the coordinates as shown in Google Maps are: 39.994389,-75.154931. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: Cool. Just out of curiosity: did you personally take all those cool old photos of Colt Stadium, the Comiskey organist, Yogi Berra, Nolan Ryan, etc.? They're pretty great. Delaywavestalk 02:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, way back when. Some with my li'l ol' Instamatic. Not much of a camera, but all I had at the time. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and Bugs: A quick request: could we not ask others to look in on the Shibe Park article till we get it worked out between the three of us first? I know I have a lot to go on it yet, and having someone tinkering while I'm still tinkering just makes it harder, if only from the standpoint of losing work to edit conflicts. Thanks. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only talked to KV5, and he hasn't done anything about it yet anyway. I just wanted a quick assessment of whether we're headed in the right direction with the article. I think so, but we'll see what the Phils Phan has to say. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Here's KV5's response: "That's... awesome. I'm speechless. Good work! — KV5 • Talk • 11:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)"[reply]
Delay and Bugs: There are two new photos at Shibe you might enjoy. Better hurry, though, 'cause they're fair-use-argued and may not be around long. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: Oh wow, that photo of the corner tower still standing is just amazing – could you imagine if they'd kept just that part as a little museum? About the boxing ticket stub: How do you know exactly if there was no copyright notice? Do you search some big copyright database, or do you just look on the photo for a copyright symbol? Because I bet there are a lot of un-copyrighted photos all across the internet just waiting to be uploaded. Delaywavestalk•contribs 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: Not to be a war-story-teller here, but I took the train to NY that last morning in 1976 when the tower was all that remained; it was visible from the North Broad Street Station. I did my business in the city, and when I returned to Philly that afternoon... it was gone. I was horrified that day, but have since become glad I saw it. True story. As regards the copyright status of tickets, I've never seen one with a copyright mark on it — it's just a ticket, after all. I debated between two templates when uploading: the one I ultimately chose, {PD-US-no notice}, and the one {PD-ineligible}, "for works too trivial to be copyrighted." We'll see if I chose wisely. I would have preferred a photo over the ticket, but the four non-free boxing photos I found had pitch black backgrounds and therefore no Shibe context, so they would never survive a fair-use argument. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: No, that's a great story! I assume you went to some games at Shibe, then? Good to know about the tickets - do you assume that's true for stuff like posters, then? Or would those be made by companies, and thus have their copyrights renewed? Delaywavestalk•contribs 20:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: One more question (sorry to keep asking them): Is there some page on Wikipedia that gives a list of all the little templates for un-renewed copyrights, like the Baseball Digest ones, or the Bowman Gum ones? Delaywavestalk•contribs 20:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: No, it's not true for posters. Posters and album covers and other items have their own listings in the drop-down menu under "Licensing"; one that I use there a lot is "promotional material" — publicity photos, press kit stuff — I use it in my movie articles. Most of the images here are taken from the internet and argued for fair-use as promotional photos. As for Shibe, yes I went to maybe twenty games there, starting in 1961, my first year as a fan (the same year the Phillies set a 23-straight-losses record that still stands!) The best was in 1965, when my Dad took me early on a Sunday morning and we staked out the corner just north of Lehigh on 21st St with a ball and a pen. The players had their own parking spots in the puny little lot there, and they arrived one by one. I got signatures from everyone except Richie Allen, as he was called then; a guard told me he always had someone drive him and he sneaked in through a secret door. To be honest, the poor ol' places was pretty long-in-the-tooth by the time I was showing up there. I couldn't find a page of unrenewed copyrights, but I'll bet there is one. I remember reading that Time magazine has about a 15-year stretch where it's PD non-renewed, but damned if I can remember where. They certainly don't make it easy, do they? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: I see. Do you still have any of those autographs? You oughta post them somewhere, if not Wikipedia. I'll ask at the help desk about a page like that. Delaywavestalk•contribs 22:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: Tell me when you want me to stop asking questions; this is one of the last: how do you know what you said about the Mack statue photo? The tag said it was published with a copyright notice, and then it wasn't renewed. How do you know that? Because on the site, there is a copyright notice. (Sorry if I sound accusatory, I'm just trying to get a better understanding.) Delaywavestalk•contribs 19:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fellas: I'm chagrined to tell you that Shibe Park has fewer than 30 watchers. I'm crestfallen. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay, if you get a chance to get to upper Manhattan sometime, it would be nifty to get a shot or two of those 3 buildings across from the Hilltop Park site. That would allow a comparison, as with the flats across the street from the Shibe Park site. A nice bit of old-and-new continuity. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: Definitely. I've been wanting to go to the Brush stairway again, partly because I wanted to see if there are a few little loose pieces of metal or concrete that I could take home as a souvenir. Hilltop is pretty close to that. Delaywavestalk 15:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that's where the already-missing parts have ended up. :) I find it interesting that the Yanks and the Giants played in, respectively, among the highest and the lowest points in Manhattan, yet were just a few blocks away from each other. And ironic that their fortunes at the time were opposite of their elevations. That would change with time. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I was able to locate the stairway entrance on Google Maps. I'm not sure we need to advertise it to the world, though. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 10:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: Yep, I've seen it on Street View. So you mean we should cut out the 158th street info? I was thinking of it as a way to sort of raise awareness about it, but if you think it'll make people vandalize it, then do what you want. Delaywavestalk 16:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can be deduced from other websites anyway. It's also barricaded. Despite being made of steel and concrete, the years have taken their toll, and anyone even walking on it does so at their own risk. I would actually be more concerned about that than anything. One thing, though: It only seems to connect Edgecombe with Harlem River Drive (which I gather is the "Speedway"). Is or was there another part of it going down the cliff to the Polo Grounds itself? Or was there maybe a ramp up the cliff? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answered my own question.[24] Looks like there was, in fact, a ramp leading from Harlem River Drive to the ballpark proper. Which would explain the reference that the Brush Stairway "led to a ticket office". That ticket office would have been at the top of that ramp. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: Responding a bit late, and this isn't very important, but only the top of the staircase is barricaded. If you just walk around the road that stretches down the bluff, and then walk back towards the staircase, it's all wide open. I walked up to the plaque. Look, here it is on street view. Delaywavestalk•contribs 13:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the article on Griffith Stadium was pretty short, so I expanded it somewhat. Look OK? You guys can change whatever you'd like. Delaywavestalk•contribs 01:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you had been adding new info and photos. Griffith Stadium is perhaps the "anti-Yankee Stadium", in that while there are photos galore of the House that Ruth Built at various stages, you really have to go looking for pictures of Griffith, simply because the team sucked most of the time and didn't get much publicity. Ironically, the only time they were any good was when the Yankees were in the first decade or so of their glory, with the Senators sneaking pennants in there in 1924-25 and 1933. The two came together in the 1950s in Damn Yankees, and even then Griffith didn't get no respect, as most of the scenes were filmed at Wrigley Field (Los Angeles version). That website called "baseball fever" has a number of older photos of Griffith here and there which help reveal its evolution. After the fire destroyed the main seating, they put up some quick temporary seating so they could hold their Opening Day, then worked quickly to have it finished by mid-season. The outfield seating remained wooden bleachers, and the walls were fairly low. In the mid-1920s they built that monstrous concrete bleacher across left field, and sometime after that they remodeled the right field area, building a "spite fence" of their own across right and center, including that bizarre 90-degree inward-pointing angle. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, there are a lot of oddly forgotten-about ballparks like Griffith. I think K.C. Municipal Stadium is the prime example, I've almost never heard it brought up anywhere, and there are barely any photos of it. You've really turned me onto Baseball Fever, I spent hours the other night just looking through the pre-renovated Yankee Stadium thread - there are some amazing photos there! Were you suggesting that we upload some Baseball Fever photos for Griffith, or were you just saying that they can be interesting to look at? Delaywavestalk•contribs 01:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They provide useful info, but I think the copyrights would need some serious investigation. I suspect that Baseball Fever doesn't give a hoot about copyrights. And you're right, it can be addicting! I actually remember KC's stadium pretty well, as it was in use during the 60s when I first got interested in the game. It was hardly ever on TV, of course. But it got a fair amount of coverage due to the antics of Charlie Finley. The Kansas City A's were really screwed, though. They were as bad in KC as they had been in Philly - and worse, in a way, because Arnold Johsnon was basically running a major league level farm team for the Yankees. That came to an end when Finley bought the team, and maybe it's not a coincidence that the old Yankees were done within a few years. The A's were just starting to get good when Finley moved them to Oakland. That was really unfortunate, as the A's couldn't hardly draw flies in Oakland even when they were winning. I imagine they would have had much better support in KC. One thing Finley did was that he kept messing with the fences. He moved them in or out seemingly almost every year. That factor at least made the place memorable in terms of the A's, but other than that, overall it was probably far more famous as the home of the Kansas City Monarchs of the Negro Leagues; the Kansas City Blues of the American Association; and the Kansas City Chiefs of the AFL/NFL. Before I forget it, the KC scoreboard was definitely second-hand: They got it from Braves Field when Boston University started to reconfigure the place to suit their needs. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Looks like a pretty nice place in the photos I've seen. That scoreboard fact is actually the one fact that I contributed to the page. Delaywavestalk•contribs 02:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was essentially rebuilt for 1955, so it was basically "new". It was also built into kind of a "bowl" on the side of a hill, as the street level at the foul line was quite noticeable. Before the Blues built the inner fence, they had a huge "terrace" there. The equivalence of the scoreboards is plain to see, as they had kind of a unique approach to the team names: They had a white background, and in fact I think they were illuminated from behind, for night games. The one thing that worked against the ballpark was that even with the double deck it was still kind of small. I think it only sat about 30,000. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More on Griffith, etc.
Here's one of the standard aerial photos of the ballpark.[25] The interesting thing about it is that shows an "intermediate" stage of the ballpark's development. The big bleacher is there, and the third base side is double-decked. However, the first base pavilion is still single-decked, and the tall right field fence cuts across that right field area instead of being flush with the lower, outer wall. That image came from this Baseball Fever page,[26] except I had located it on Google Images. On that same page, note the many images of Yankee Stadium... and also a shot of the Polo Grounds, in which that ramp up to the Speedway, along with the ticket booths near the top of the ramp, are very obvious. The shot of Yankee Stadium is interesting too, in that it's clear the Stadium was specifically designed to be multi-purpose. Its primary layout is baseball. But it has a (non-standard) running track, in case they wanted to have a track meet there. And notice how the bleachers are "squared off" to accommodate football fans. Oh, and there's also a picture of Fenway, showing "Duffy's Cliff" running all the way along the wall clear out to the point in center where the bleachers obscure it. That was another "terrace" whose purpose was to make up the difference between field level and street level. There's a story that the famous Fisk HR in 1975, the shot with Fisk trying to "wave" the ball fair, was aided by the cameraman seeing a rat, which distracted him from following the flight of the ball. The base of the scoreboard is below street level, i.e. it's where rats like to hang out. There's just no Duffy's Cliff anymore. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I've heard that rat story before, wouldn't it be something if it were true? Check out that boxing ring photo of the Polo Grounds. Look at where the Chesterfield sign normally was in center field - what the hell is that? Looks like some kind of temple. Delaywavestalk•contribs 04:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or something out of Professional Wrestling. Even then they made a big deal out of these one-on-one matches. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shibe continued once more
The old section was sort of lagging behind all the others. Harry: Everything about Shibe looks great, except I noticed when mentioning Lou Gehrig's 4-homer game, it says Earle Combs caught his potential fifth one. Combs was on Gehrig's team, so that's impossible. I looked it up, and the consensus seems to be that Al Simmons caught it, although I can't find any real proof. Should we change it? Delaywavestalk•contribs 12:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, that's a horrible error, and it's my fault. I'll fix it unless someone's already done it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and Bugs: Great "catch" (get it?) guys. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of Vin Scully's call of a pop foul in the 1980 World Series: "Boone... dropped it... Rose caught it!" ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, to this day, Boone is pissed about that. He says it was Rose's ball all the way, and when it looked like Rose was lollygagging, Boone says he lunged for it. Everyone remembers the screw-up as his, but he maintains it was Rose's. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judge for yourself, at the 1:20 mark.[28] This is from the World Series film, so it has commentary by Vin Scully but not the actual live call. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: Tough call. I remember that night, watching that live. It was, uh, otherwordly. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and Bugs: Fellas, I'm about done the major work on Shibe Park I think. I have that usual photo you see of the 1948 Eagles championship game in the snow, but I gotta find the source on the net (I forget where I got it) and figure out how to argue the rationale for it. I'd love to find a Negro Leagues photo for that section, but they're few and far between on the net and there's been nothing nearly appropriate. Bugs, I'd like to touch up the Spite Fence section a little because it reads as if it were strictly Mack's battle and Kuklick says it was as much Jack Shibe's doing as Mack's, if not more. I can think of a dozen little things to go in, but I think the big stuff's there. Any upgrades you guys make are gratefully welcomed. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not especially a fan of Rose, but to me he looked like he was watching to make sure he didn't run into the dugout or into Boone himself. But he was right there, so obviously he was in position to have made the play even if Boone hadn't moved from behind home plate. I always thought the funniest thing was Rose's habit of bouncing the ball like a basketball on the hard artificial turf, keeping in mind the ball was live, and if it had gotten away from him, the runners could have advanced. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to interrupt the Pete Rose commentary, I just figured I should let you guys know that I'm leaving tomorrow for about 19 days, and I won't be able to edit while I'm away. If you guys wanna keep the discussion on this page, or move it somewhere else, that'd be fine. I'd like to resume our trio when I get back, maybe on a different article, it's a nice little system we've got here. Delaywavestalk•contribs 18:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If you guys are looking for anything to do, on the Griffith Stadium article, the photo of the uneven grandstand roof works much better on the right, but I had to put it on the left because there wasn't enough space. If you guys could find some text to put anywhere in the article so we could space out the images more, that would be great. Delaywavestalk•contribs 02:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have a great trip, Delay! Don't take any wooden nickels! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: I uploaded this great shot to the Commons. The all-stars are scrambling for FDR's first pitch as a souvenir. The LOC caption reads: "Scramble for Roosevelt pitch. Washington D.C., July 7. Risking millions of dollars of arms and limbs players from both All-Star teams stage a mad scramble to the first ball pitched by President Roosevelt to start the 1937 game today. Joe Moore, N.Y. Giants outfielder, caught the much coveted souvenir, 7/7/37" Is there any room in Griffith Stadium for it? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I'd look for a place for it. I had wondered about that little erector-set-like tower on the grandstand roof, as there were no lights at Griffith until 1941. I went google-image searching, and this one[29] from 1949 indicates a small set of either lights or speakers, I'm not sure which. But the big tower in the background was not in the 1937 picture, which stands to reason. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put it wherever you think. I'm brain-dead. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: I added more Presidents. Goddamn Eisenhower kept us from running the table; can't find one of him anywhere. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be good to find one of Truman throwing it right-handed. I think he preferred his left hand and that him alternating hands was somewhat of a myth. But I'm fairly certain he threw it right handed at least once. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good eyes on the mislabeled Eisenhower shot. I'm not sure I have the energy to go through a fair-use argument for it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't really "mis-labeled", it was just the peculiarities of Google Images. That was on this page,[30] which has lots of good images. However, I doubt the Ike photo is at Griffith, since it features the Yankees and Dodgers. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-so, if it's the Yanks and Dodgers, it's the World Series. Those I saw at the LOC — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On closer examination on that page, it identifies it as 1955 World Series. There's also a Coolidge picture from the 1924 World Series, which is nifty since it was the only Series the old Senators ever won. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One point of interest, not within the scope of the Griffith article though, is the degree to which the various Presidents actually liked the game vs. used it for PR. I vaguely recall reading that FDR, for example, was not really a fan of baseball as such, though he obviously recognized its value to the American public. Truman, on the other hand, followed the game closely. And I'm thinking it was one of the first ladies, maybe Mrs. Coolidge, who was an avid fan. Nixon was a sports fan, of course. Taft was a big fan in more ways than one. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely conclusive, but this one (labeled 1948) looks like he had thrown it right-handed.[32] Maybe he was trying to appeal to the right-wing vote in the coming election. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: I added a new baseball section to Shibe. It needs the eye — and expertise — of a better baseball man than I. Would you please do the honors? I want to cite some expert saying the '29 ('30? '31?) A's was one of the greatest teams of all time. Any thoughts? Only caveat: we gotta keep it as short as poss. Thanks, Bugs. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs and Delay: Fellas, I'm 'bout done with Shibe (though I'm sure I'll be finding little fixes for awhile). Your comments and improvements are gratefully welcomed. Speaking of welcome, Welcome home, Delay! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs/Harry: I'm baaack! awesome improvements to Shibe and Griffith - didn't use a computer at all for the past couple weeks so it's gonna take some getting used to. Glad to be back. Delaywavestalk•contribs 01:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome home, Delay! You got photos for us? (where'dya go?) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went to northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. I might post some photos tomorrow if I see any that have some potential. Good night for now. Delaywavestalk•contribs 05:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry/Bugs: I found a video online from the Prelinger Archives that has footage of Griffith Stadium, including an FDR first pitch where he has to stand with the help of an aide. (This is mentioned in the article.) It's fairly fuzzy if it's blown up all the way, but it would look fine if it's used as a thumbnail in the article. We do already have an FDR photo there, although it doesn't actually show him. Whadda you guys think? Delaywavestalk•contribs 16:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: I say go for it, as long as it's not too fuzzy. If any of us runs into a still shot that includes FDR himself, it would be a good add to that gallery. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added it to the gallery, tell me what you think. I was thinking it could also go instead in the Presidential Destination section, because that's where it mentions how he needed the aide's help. Thoughts? Delaywavestalk•contribs 21:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: The caption, and the Destination section above it, give the wrong impression about FDR's paralysis status. His polio occurred in the 1920s, and he entered the White House in 1933 already in a wheelchair (though it was seldom photographed). The line about him being "sickly" in 1941 is also wrong; he was paralyzed, but robust — his health didn't decline until mid-1944, when it declined precipitously. I also think the photo is too fuzzy. A good rule of thumb might be, if it can't survive an upsizing, then it's probably too fuzzy to use as a thumbnail. Just MHO, though. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: Okay, I removed the photo, you can change whatever you want about the sickness wording. Delaywavestalk•contribs 22:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say this photo survived the upsizing? It's a different still from that site that also could be used as a thumbnail, but isn't great when enlarged. Delaywavestalk•contribs 22:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: Wow, I found the source of the bad info about FDR — it's the Brad Snyder book. I'm sure his work on Griffith is good, but his FDR info is bad. I softened it some, but I really don't feel like chasing far and wide for better cites. As for the photos, I feel like I bullied you on that last one, and I don't want to do that. Just look at a potential photo, compare its clarity with others in the article, and with others around Wikipedia, and if it's comparable, then, as they say, "Be Bold." If it's substandard, then the critics will be all over it right quick! (I just had my beloved CBS#The_radio_years eviscerated by deletionists while you were away. Big brouhaha, very discouraging. I'm considering retirement from this place. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and Bugs: Are you guys enamored of the edit made by IP user 24.151.58.181 about the scoreboard? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A great addition to that article. It also confirmed my hazy memory that, when I was a kid, night games started at 8:05. Wow. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I joined some Yahoo group about the Polo Grounds just to see what pictures were posted. There are a lot of really cool ones that are great to look at, even if they can't be posted, and I guess a few cool ones like this. Delaywavestalk•contribs 16:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also a great add to the Jake Ruppert article. It makes that a nice-lookin' page now. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I liked the way it made the article look. I've found a way to download those super-high quality TIFF images from the LOC, so I've been updating a lot of ones like the Ruppert photo that I had uploaded a while ago. Kudos for still adding to Shibe, I'm amazed there's so much info out there. I've tried looking for some more stuff about Griffith and Sportsman's, but there isn't much. Delaywavestalk•contribs 18:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sir — it means a lot coming from you. I was pleased to find the USPS stamp for Shibe, to see it all shiny and new again there at the end after all those paragraphs of decay and decrepitude... Wish we could find a shot of one of the Negro World Series played there in the '30s, but I'm not holding my breath. Isn't it sad that all those baseball achievements seem to have gone unrecorded on film... — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's also frustrating how many videos/photos do exist, but are locked away in the Hall of Fame or some archive somewhere, unavailable to average folks like us. Oh well...did you see that panorama I uploaded of the '24 Negro League series? Another one of those super-high quality shots, where you can zoom in to see every player's face. Luckily, each player's name is on the photo so identification is no problem. I've uploaded 2 or 3 derivatives from it so far. The LOC has some great stuff. Delaywavestalk•contribs 19:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, are you familiar with this place, Shorpy.com? There are tens of thousands of high-quality images, many from the Detroit Pub Company, which is well represented at the LOC. Shorpy's images are higher qual than the LOC, but have a watermark and are not PD. Use the LOC for uploading here, but use Shorpy for getting the pictures you want to keep. If you wanna see some great 1940s 4x5 Kodachromes, try here. Not much baseball stuff at Shorpy, but for general 20th century photos, you can spend days there and not even make a dent — except in your available drive storage space. If you haven't seen it, hope you like. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! It's exactly like you said: super-high quality and very cool shots. Even if they can't be uploaded, they're fun to look at. Sort of like those Baseball Fever threads. Delaywavestalk•contribs 02:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They can't be uploaded here but they can be downloaded for your own collection. Be sure to go to the largest version available to do your "Save picture as" or else you'll get a thumbnail or a smaller preview. Glad you like the joint. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The terrific stamp image at the end of Shibe Park has been marked for deletion by a deletionist. You can help save it by adding a Keep comment at the deletion list linked here. Bugs could help, too, (though I don't feel I can ask him because I think he's a little annoyed at me), and I know he has many friends who could also post Keep comments. Enough Keeps would avert the deletion. I'd hate to see this image get yanked because, although strictly speaking it is not discussed as a stamp in the text, it does bring a lot to the article. Thanks for your help, Delay. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to help, but... what should I say? I looked at the image and I'm fairly confused about what the argument is. Delaywavestalk•contribs 12:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He says the stamp could be described in prose. I think we need to avoid trying to rebut his two arguments ('cause I don't think we can win that way) and just say that it is a unique view that is not shown in any extant photo and that it enhances the reader's experience and that it is discussed in the text. My hope is that if we get a bunch of Keeps it will overwhelm his argument. Thanks. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I wrote a little something at the deletion place. Your strategy sounds like a good one. Hope Bugs'll help. Delaywavestalk•contribs 19:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've been cited for canvassing, so we can't talk about it anymore. Thanks again. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, I'm thinking about updating all those '70s LOC photos of Shibe with the super-High-Res TIFF images. I looked at one already, and there are some great details that aren't visible in the low-res. I thought I'd check with you before I start, just in case you had done any retouching or something that you didn't want undone. I'll crop out the borders the same way you did. Delaywavestalk•contribs 21:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just check the file size limits at Commons. I think they frown on superhuge file sizes, but I'm not sure. Would they go up as tiffs or jpgs? I don't want to limit the number of people who can see 'em, which tiffs might do. I don't know enough about the advan/disadvan of doing it to say. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They'd go up as jpgs, and I've uploaded bigger files than these that are easily viewable. Sound OK? May not start till tomorrow at this hour, or maybe one or two. Delaywavestalk•contribs 02:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's the first one. Check out the sign on the door just to the right of the main entrance of the cupola. Why do you suppose the revival was moved? Maybe the state of the stadium, or maybe some other reason.Delaywavestalk•contribs 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded the first two, will finish the rest tomorrow. Delaywavestalk•contribs 02:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you weren't whistling Dixie — they look great! A great add! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see the sign you're talking about, moving the revival. Kuklick says that a revival tent was being set up when the two young brothers started the fire, so I'm guessing that sign dates back to the days immediately following the fire two years previously. Interestingly, the revival moved to the Philadelphia Arena, another venue in decline by 1971. In its glory days, it had the TV studios of WFIL-TV in its basement and was the point of origination for American Bandstand, the legendary daily rock-n-roll show from about '57 till about '62. By 1971, though, WFIL was gone and even the Roller Derby had decamped for The Spectrum. There couldn't have been a more analogous place to move the revival. Guess their tent burned up in the fire at Shibe. Again, great add! Harry. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look just to the left of the door with the revival sign, down at sidewalk level. "They" cut the cornerstone out of the building. Wonder where that's at these days! (There's a great shot from Oct 1970, day after the last game, of black neighborhood men leaning on that original cornerstone. If I can find it again, I'll link it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you saw what happened to the stamp. This fellow Fastily wrote that he really doesn't care what the vote tally is, he evaluates the arguments and he decides who wins. Also, I put up your great 1954 price list at Shibe. Do you like the caption? Did you give up on uploading the higher-def 1973 Shibe shots? I see there's a couple yet to go. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shame about the stamp. Well, we have quite a few other great images there, even if they don't show the same view that one did. The price list looks great; I tweaked the caption a tiny bit - I think "dogs" might be a little too casual. I'll get on the rest of those 1973 photos right now; I kinda got distracted by uploading some other stuff, but I'll finish 'em. Delaywavestalk•contribs 19:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I re=tweaked that caption, cuz there was a widow. Nothing out of the spirit of your tweak. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, look at the sharp eyes on Delaywaves! Okay, hawkeye, here's one for you: Kuklick (or somebody) wrote that there were busts of Mack and Shibe over the entrances to the grandstand (Shibe on Lehigh and Mack on 21st), and I can't find 'em in any picture. Okay, now look closely at the super-rez photo of the grandstand entrance and, above the door, it looks as if whatever had been there in the scrollwork has been busted off! Like maybe with a sledgehammer! There might even be crumbled pieces of sement still on the ledge. Whadda you think? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I just saw where it says "B.F. Shibe" under the cartouche! So someone did knock it off, with a sledgehammer, mustabeen! Wow. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. That sure answers that. I didn't notice that when I looked either. Y'know, Baseball Fever's thread on Shibe has quite a few good photos of the entrance. (There are only 14 pages, so it won't take a week to look through like some of the others.) Maybe one of those has the busts in them? Delaywavestalk•contribs 22:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How 'bout this one on page 13? Awfully hard to see, but in the space above the entrance there seems to be a small dark patch that doesn't appear in the 1973 ones. I was picturing the busts as concrete, but maybe they were some sort of metal. I'll keep looking. Delaywavestalk•contribs 22:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I stood right in front of the 21st St. grandstand entrance for hours three or four times to get autographs, and I can't for the life of me remember Mack's face up there; I clearly remember the stone plaque "Entrance to the Grand Stand", but not any face or bust. The thing I read describes those heads as "terra cotta" — which probably means pigmented cement. Imagine what it took to get up there and smash those things! A ladder and a sledge — can you say "anger management?" — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I'd been imagining some guy that wanted to keep the busts so he sort of lightly chiseled them off and put 'em in his garage. But of course, it must have been some vandal - when I visited the site this year, the neighborhood wasn't the greatest, and it seems to have been worse back then. Did you ever get any autographs out there? Delaywavestalk•contribs 23:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked closely at the 21st St entrance in the first shot of the series, and it looks like the Mack head might've been busted off, too. What an odd thing — because it wasn't easy to do. Thanks again for those high-rez uploads, I'd be some sorry detective without 'em. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I got several balls' worth, all mid-60s Phils except Allen: Bunning, Callison, Wine, Amaro (Sr), Hoak, Groat, Gonzalez — all of 'em except Allen. He had his own private, secret, door and dropped off right at it by a driver. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! The best I've ever gotten was David Eckstein...last year. Do you still have them? Delaywavestalk•contribs 23:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a funny story, though: my mom's favorite player (mine too) was Johnny Callison, and when I came home with a ball of sigs that had his on it, she decided that it needed to be protected from decay — chemically. So she got out a bottle of clear nail polish to varnish the thing and went straight to Callison's signature to start on. She dipped the brush, drew it across the signature, and the whole thing smeared into a blue Van Gogh Starry Night! And ironically, the ball today is somewhere between ecru and khaki in color, except that swath where the nail polish is — it's brown. Hahahaha! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Classic! You'd better spread the word about that ball's history to all your relatives; why would someone keep a baseball with a brown smear on it unless they knew the full story? Delaywavestalk•contribs 00:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my son Colin knows it well. It's in one of those ball cubes now, in his custody. His best autograph is Ashburn, which he got when we prepared a spreadsheet comparison of Ashburn's record vs. the Hall of Fame membership during the "Why the Hall Not?" campaign. Ashburn beat somebody in every category and beat half-a-dozen members in every category but home runs. His mother knew Ashburn's son and gave him the spreadsheet, the son passed it along to Ashburn, who said "Even I didn't know I was this good" and he sent a signed ball along to Colin. Now that's a backstory! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BINGO!! Download the massive tiff version of this photo zoom in, and you'll see a clear view of the Mack face/bust over the 21st street Grand Stand Entrance. You'll have to teach me what I don't know about these tiff versions, 'cause I can't get the super hi-rez results that you do! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a find! And it had been right under our noses the whole time. Funny, that one doesn't seem to be as super-high res as the others. Once I zoom in on Mack's head it gets a bit fuzzy, whereas it would've been sharp on those '73 ones. You're probably doing everything right, it's just the photo. I'll update the Commons image with the TIFF now. Delaywavestalk•contribs 20:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a separate story, I got a Flickr user to change the license of this photo to Creative Commons, which I uploaded here. I think it's a pretty good shot, where do you want it to go in the article? Delaywavestalk•contribs 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in the "1938–1954" section, but you can feel free to move it as you please. Delaywavestalk•contribs 21:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one with a massive, 23-meg tiff. This one's on Lehigh Ave and just might give us a view of the Ben Shibe face over the Lehigh door. Here's what I'd like to accomplish with these: a before-and-after pairing of the heads intact vs. the '73 shots, side-by-side (like the two Whiz Kids cards) with the headline Souvenir or vandalism victim?. Then explain in the caption that they gazed benignly over the corner 60 years until they vanished in the 70s, blah-blah. I'm not sure there's a good enough shot of Mack on 21st either before or after, but we do have a good Shibe-after shot if we can just find a good Shibe-before. They'd be small in the article, so they don't have to be great, just good. Another contender for a "Souvenir or victim" diptych would be that cornerstone, which appears clearly (actually, its absence is clear) in the first '73 shot. Wish we could use that photo I sent you from Temple, with the neighborhood men hanging about on the corner. Did you get that shot in your e-mail? The cigar stand on Lehigh is interesting in the photo linked above.
What an odd photo that Flickr shot is. Can't figure out what's going on there. Wish we knew which team it is. Also — I never saw that Warning sign on the fence in any other shot. You think it's some war-related admonition? (it is 1943, after all). It's intriguing, but I have no idea where to put it. We're getting close to full-up. Good work persuading that Flickr guy to consent. Wonder where he got it from? Let me browse the article for a spot to put it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's definitely a bust in that photo, but I think that one is just too fuzzy to use in the article. I like the plan, though - If we can find one of Ben Shibe to use that would be good, or maybe just the one of Mack with the corresponding '73 photo. I have no clue what's happening in that photo - all he seems to know is that it's a Sunday afternoon game. Getting Flickr users to change their photo licenses is really easy - everyone there is much nicer than on Wikipedia! I did the same for that 1960 photo. He asked to see my contributions on Wikipedia and was impressed, but I made a point of telling him that a guy named HarringtonSmith did a hell of a lot more for Shibe than I did. I'll update the Mack-bust-zoomed-out-photo now. Delaywavestalk•contribs 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed this one already, but the TIFF version of this image shows a fuzzy but definite view of both busts at once. Even if Mack was the A's part-owner, it's hard to believe they put a bust of him on the side of the stadium. Can you imagine if George Steinbrenner's head stared down at you every time you entered Yankee Stadium? Wouldn't be a pleasant experience. Delaywavestalk•contribs 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mack and Shibe must have been somewhat local celebs — check out the souvenir program cover up near the top of the article, where Shibe and Mack have top billing, their own pictures at the very top. So I guess it's not surprising that their heads are up there over the doors. Then again, it could be sycophants in the A's publicity department and at Steele & Sons that worked 'em in. Who knows. I'd love to know where those heads are now — I've come to agree with your souvenir-hunter theory, not an enraged sledge-wielding madman. Incidentally, I'm sure you've seen the metal plate they put up in '53 to cover the stone Shibe Park with Connie Mack Stadium — I saw that plate for sale in a card shop in the early '90s. Guess how much? $50,000! Dunno if they ever got it. I'm slowly giving up hope on that before-and-after diptych idea; I just don't think we're gonna find a Shibe-before shot, and the Mack ones are always fuzzy and in the shade. Also, I haven't seen a good "before" cornerstone shot. Ah, well.
Now, the tougher conversation. I have two issues with the new 1943 photo. First is placement: it's out of chronological order in that spot. We go from 1929, to '38, to '50, to '54, to '55, to '57 to '60, and each lines up well with its spot in the text. Sticking '43 in between '50 and '54 messes that flow up. I could live with it if the images didn't line up so well with the text. We have to find a better spot. Other problem is the caption: it's an unusual photo showing something very unusual going on. Publishing rules of thumb say that you must solve a photographic anomaly in the caption — you cannot show both teams and all umpires clumped together at second and the whole rest of the field completely devoid of people, and not say what's happening in the picture. If we could find out what that Warning sign on the LCF wall is all about, we could address that in the caption and sidestep the issue of the clumped people. But we just can't run such an unusual photo with a self-evident caption like that. I'm sure we can fix this — I'm gonna check Kuklick when I log off and see if I can find anything out about wartime signs in the park. Don't be angry with me, I just want this article to be as good as it can be. Harry — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the chronological thing - I just wanted to get it in the article quickly because the Flickr user that took it seemed to really want to see it there. I feel like I've seen that warning sign before - if it was up for a while, there must be some zoomed-in photos of it where we can read what it says. Delaywavestalk•contribs 12:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no rush to fix it, as long as we do fix it. Let me cobble together a "place keeper" caption till we come up with the keeper caption; I had no luck with Kuklick. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had an idea to post the photo on the Baseball Fever thread about Shibe and ask if anyone knows what the sign said, but for some reason my account can't post on threads. It's a shame, because I've seen plenty of people there ask for photos of certain ballpark features, and immediately get them. Delaywavestalk•contribs 13:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had trouble accessing threads at Baseball Fever yesterday. They might be having tech problems. I put that caption in. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the chronological problem: how about I remove that 1938 photo of Connie Mack and put the 1943 photo in its place? That would fix the chronological issue, and we have another photo of Mack only one section before. Sound OK? Delaywavestalk•contribs 19:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, do not replace the 1938 Mack photo; it's important to the flow of the narrative right there, more so than the 1943 photo. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shibe and Mack?
Where do you see the busts of Shibe and Mack in those photos? I can't see them. Could you upload an altered version under a different name, with the busts arrowed or circled? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you downloading the TIFF versions? They're only visible in those, and fairly faintly. Look at this 1973 photo. You see the smashed off part above the "Entrance to Grand Stand" sign? Look at the same spot in those 1913 ones, and you'll see them on each side. Delaywavestalk•contribs 20:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see it now. How weird. Maybe vandalism, maybe they just decided they didn't like seeing their own mugs up there. I've never heard or read anything about it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding that 1943 photo, can you ask the source if he has a higher-resolution version? It would be interesting to find out what that "Warning" notice is about. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be either the warning notice or an explanation of what's transpiring at second that makes the shot worthwhile; without at least one of those answers, its value as a photo goes down. Delay, one mystery that photo actually deepens is the irregularity in the baseline on the first-base side of second that was alluded to in that cartoon. It looks all squared-up to me in that photo. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs and Delay: I have a 1972 shot from Temple that looks like the whole scrollwork around Mack's head on 21st is still intact. It doesn't enlarge clearly enough to see the face, but the top of it looks straighter and more intact than the 1973 shots. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 1943 pic does contain some useful info about the field. It shows the (nearly) square corner in center (which is unmarked); it shows the 405 sign in left center; it shows the slight upslope in center. The warning sign says that persons (doing something I can't read) will be arrested and prosecuted. Probably either throwing stuff onto the field, or trespassing on the field. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guy doesn't have a higher resolution, but he said he found two more photos from the same day: this one and this one. He also says that he looked at a journal he kept at the time which says that he went to a doubleheader on May 16, 1943 between the Phillies and Cardinals. I dunno if knowing the exact date helps very much, but maybe those 2 new photos will. I'll upload them tonight. Delaywavestalk•contribs 01:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrosheet doesn't have play-by-play for that doubleheader, but it does have the box scores.[33][34] The one photo showing the home plate area, based on the stance and that it could be number 6, appears to be Stan Musial at bat. Not enough info to determine what was going on at second in that one photo, but the box scores don't suggest anyone left for injuries - the pinch runners appear to be late-inning strategy. The other photo shows a play developing at second, and it could be that the gathering at second was due to a suspected injury immediately following that play. Note someone kneeling to presumably assist the runner (or the baseman, perhaps). Also note you can see the 405 and the 400 signs. The reference to that is misplaced in the article. Still can't read the warning sign. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, no - it's merely the relay to second following a single to left field. Too bad the scoreboard can't be read. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I've seen that warning sign before...but I have no idea where. Maybe, if we're incredibly lucky, some old newspaper will have a mention of an injury at a Phillies game on May 16? Google News has some great newspaper archives, if you didn't already know. Delaywavestalk•contribs 02:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something: According to the May 17, 1943 issue of the Youngstown Vindicator, "The rejuvenated Phillies and the St. Louis Cardinals-world champions-split a pair of nifty pitching duels yesterday before a crowd of 30,823 at Shibe Park, the biggest major league attendance of the day and the second largest National League turnout in Philadelphia history. Not amazing, but that's a pretty interesting fact about the game, no?
Indeed. It's clear that it was a big crowd. I know what you mean about that warning sign looking familiar. It wasn't there in 1939 when the lights went up, and it was gone by 1950 when the Phillies won the pennant. So I have to wonder if it actually was war-related - maybe a loose-lips-sink-ships kind of warnig. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further down that page, note the term "twirler", a very common synonym for "pitcher" that is seldom if ever heard nowadays. Once pitchers generally stopped doing the "windmill" windup, the term became obsolete. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Christ. Two of those Shibe images have been nominated for deletion because "there is no evidence the Flickr uploader actually own the copyright to the image" I commented on the entry for both of them, but I don't know if my argument is sufficient that the uploader told me he personally took them. Delaywavestalk•contribs 02:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: Here's the link to the 1972 photo. You're not going to be able to see the face itself — which Kuklick calls "casts" (p. 28) but you can see that the surrounding scrollwork is in better shape than in the 1973 shots. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really tell, but my guess is that they were vandalized after the park was abandoned. FYI, earlier I said I wasn't annoyed at anyone. Now I am: at that aptly-named user called WWIIcensor or whatever. I'm becoming convinced we're dealing with a moron. How is someone supposed to "prove" they took a photo in 1943? Gimme a break! ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: I have an interesting sports cartoonist's take on Shibe Park that I sent to Delay. It cites some sort of abberation in the turf near second base. Send me an e-mail address and I'll send it to you, plus several other Shibe treats. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get to e-mail right now. Can you tell me what "abberation" you mean? I don't see anything unusual in that one photo, but I'm not too sharp. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: What I wrote was that the 1943 photo doesn't answer the mystery of what the 1937 cartoonist drew and wrote about — it was some defect in the sod or the dirt near second, famous enough to find its way into the tribute. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were talking about the Ed Burns writeup in the Chicago Tribune,[35] but I don't see anything about it in that writeup. Is that item you refer to, online somewhere? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the Ed Burns thing; the signature might say Gene Mack. It points to an "unusual second base cutout" that I was hoping would show up in the 1943 photo but doesn't. I'll send it to you, but I can't get to a full web search to find it again. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gene Mack drew a series of cartoons about ballparks, but that was in the late 1940s. I'll see if I can find it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one, and it was immediately after the Burns item, duh! I have no clue about the "unusual cutout". :( ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That cutout is visible in at least some of the aerial photos 2 pages prior,[36] and furthermore it looks like someone's standing on it. Maybe the second baseman in the late 40s tended to play in closer than normal? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I'm fairly certain Eugene "Gene Mack" McGillicuddy was a cousin of Cornelius "Connie Mack" McGillicuddy, and was likewise from New England. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think those photos are safe. Thanks a lot guys, both of your arguments were great. Delaywavestalk•contribs 12:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're right. I apologize if my pushing this too hard results in some admin deciding to delete it "just to teach me a lesson". I consider ww2censor to be incompetent, and I "took one for the team" in refusing to recant that belief. So it goes. :) Having said all that, it might be best to ask the Flickr uploader to provide specific details and permissions so that the deletionist idiots will have to find some other excuse to justify their pinheadedness. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound like a paranoid, but don't forget that Fastily deleted the Shibe Park Stamp despite its having won the balloting. Bugs, good for you letting them have it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out that fact somewhere along the way before they gave me my 24 hour shore leave. In my experience, the folks who run commons (not the everyday users nor even necessarily its admins, but the folks who actually run it) are incompetent morons. My case in point is a user named Xanderliptak, who freely uploaded some coats-of-arms he had created, and then fought for over a year to get them deleted because he didn't like the fact that his personal watermark had been edited out. He was trying to use wikipedia as a sales tool, and it didn't go as he had planned. He finally got his way, by sending an intimidating and bogus "copyright violation" legal threat to the operators of commons - and being clueless, they caved in to that character. That incident destroyed any faith I might have had in their competence. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My beef with this whole outfit starts right at the top — with the fact that they reward quantity of contributions over quality of them. This has given rise to legions of roaming thugs who see themselves as "wikignomes" but who in reality are just thumbprinters who are out to make changes for change's sake — whether or not it's a change for the better doesn't matter. Invariably, these guys have absolutely no publishing experience outside Wikipedia, and they don't know crap from Christmas about how to put an attractive, readable page together. That's how you wind up with these rabid deletionists who denude a page of all images and leave vast expanses of what people in the real world of publishing call "gray real estate" — a real no-no to anyone who knows anything about it. Stubbornness trumps creative experience and judgment in forming creative decisions. Did you ever notice that the place calls its editors "users"!?! The users should be the readers! The editors should be merely facilitators for the readers' benefits. So long as this twisted organizational culture persist, Wikipedia will continue to be the laughingstock it is to most of the population. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... what he said. Really, though, those stories are unbelievable, and the more people I get involved with on this site, the more stubborn and aggravating they seem to get. Bugs: This obviously doesn't mean much on a large scale, but that Xanderliptak guy seems to be blocked now. I guess some others are sane enough to recognize the insanity that is sometimes present here. I thought the same exact thing that you said on the deletion entries: if there isn't sufficient evidence that the Flickr user took those photos, then there isn't sufficient evidence that any of the photos on Wikipedia were taken by the claimed uploader. There really isn't any explanation for this WW2 guy's logic other than he just loves asserting power in absurd ways like this. Oh well. If these images get deleted, we need to take this up with some high-ranking person that isn't drunk on power. There needs to be some order here, no? Delaywavestalk•contribs 20:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One alternative would be to ask the source to create an account here and then upload his photos with the PD-SELF license, and then see the deletionists try to get around that. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't encourage him to post them to the Shibe Park article, please. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the ones that the deletionists are threatening. You're right, we're getting to the point where we're liable to have to have one of those "additional media is on commons" things. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he uploads them, isn't he gonna want to see them in an article? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I never signed off on this whole getting-him-to-upload-them-himself thing. I already got him to change the license on all of his photos, I think asking him to upload them himself is a little much - he is in his late 80s, after all. And yes, he would probably want to see at least one of them in the article. But hey, I sort of would too - the first one is the only good view we have of the interior of the stadium. Delaywavestalk•contribs 22:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I love NHH's travel photos! Egypt... the Taj Mahal... such interesting photos! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And they're all ours! I'm sure the more we use, the happier he'll be. Delaywavestalk•contribs 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I/we should wait until this whole Shibe mess gets sorted out before we upload some more of NHH's photos? Or should we just go ahead? Delaywavestalk•contribs 23:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have a better place for the 1943 photo: let's slot it in place of the 1913 shot that discusses the 1913 upgrades and ends in "more seats, more roofs." If you check the text adjacent, it discusses the Mack upgrades of the park from 1938 through 1949 — which certainly includes 1943. We still have to solve at least one of the mysteries, though: either the message of the Warning sign, or the goings-on at second. You cannot introduce two mysteries in a picture and not account for at least one of them. Both would be better (and would be mandatory from every editor I've ever known). — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the owner could put a magnifying glass to the original print and see if he can make out what that warning sign says? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well...should I ask him? I guess it wouldn't annoy him that I keep asking about that photo, he is awfully supportive of what we're doing. Delaywavestalk•contribs
I'm betting the sign has something to do with wartime security. Bet you didn't know that radio stations were forbidden from mentioning game postponements because it would tell the enemy there was rain in a given city! True fact. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs: I uploaded a '23 Polo Grounds photo that has a good view of Yankee Stadium in the background. Do you think we should put it into the PG article at all, or would the photo gallery be a good place for it? Delaywavestalk•contribs 00:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and Bugs: Great new photo! If I have a vote, I cast it in favor of putting it in the article, not in some gallery. It'll be the best photo in there!
Also, fellas, I put up a new photo at Shibe Park courtesy of Delay's fine work with those hi-rez tiff files. I think it might be overkill — what do you both think? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: Wow, what an addition! I like that even more than the old "A" cartouches. Overkill, schmoverkill: I think this one's gotta stay. Harry/Bugs: NHH hasn't responded yet about our magnifying glass request, and he's normally pretty prompt - I hope I didn't annoy him. Delaywavestalk•contribs 00:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also curious to know how large the print is, or maybe he took it from a negative? It's possible to make pretty good sized scans from those little Brownie pictures, provided they were reasonably sharp to begin with. The 1923 photo is excellent! I think I've seen a companion photo that shows the left field area, overlapping this one's frame a bit, somewhere on baseball fever. The interesting thing about the stadium's modification is that they extended the lower deck first, to replace the old wooden bleachers - then extended the upper deck and built the new clubhouse as the season progressed. I once knew someone from New York who was a kid in the late 40s-early 50s, and he said the view of the field from the back rows of that deep-outfield upper deck were really poor. Seems like the fans would have been better off if they had left the center field seats open. They also made the clubhouse runway too narrow, so they had to put little screens on either side of it to make the batters background wider. These things happen. Note the sun angle from the shadows, and the bright reflection of the sun off that one curved section of seats. Note also the gradual step-down they had to do on the wall in that curve in order to result in a symmetrical center field area. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is what you meant, Bugs, but a photo that fits your description is already on the PG article, with the caption "Polo Grounds expansion in progress during the 1923 season". I think there were quite a few bad seats at the Polo Grounds - I've seen photos from field level that are really far away from the infield. Delaywavestalk•contribs 01:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right, it's already there. You can tell from certain features that the two photos were taken from exactly the same spot, and very close together timewise. Someone who knew more about photoshop than I do (which is to say nothing) could probably adjust the contrasts and "stitch" the two photos together to provide a nice panorama. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, my dad was a Giants fan and told me years ago that there were more bad seats in the Polo Grounds than good ones. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The park was much more condusive to football - almost ideal, I should think - and it was used for many, many college and pro games over the years. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NHH sez: "I tried a strong magnifying glass on both of the prints that show the "warning" sign, but no use - still just a blur and unreadable." Oh well, let me try posting again in Baseball Fever and ask if anyone has a close-up of that sign. Delaywavestalk•contribs 02:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good, Baseball Fever seems to be working again, and I posted our question in the Shibe thread. Now we simply wait... Delaywavestalk•contribs 03:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Success! Those Baseball Fever people are unbelievable. It said "WARNING: Persons throwing bottles or other missiles will be arrested and prosecuted". You can see photo that proves it here, at the bottom of the page. Delaywavestalk•contribs 15:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding! Notice that it came from the Temple archives. However, I didn't see it when I seached for "Shibe Park", so I wonder how it's categorized. Also, every answer leads to another question. Notice that the lower portion of the wall is slanted. I had never seen that subtlety before. What's up with that? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange. You can sort of see that slant in the NHH photo as well, or at least the point where the angle changes. Delaywavestalk•contribs 18:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll be damned! Anybody mind if I take a shot at a caption? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another trivial detail: It's becoming evident that by the 1940s it was no longer a square corner in center, but instead was a small triangle, with a fence hiding the batting cage. There was no distance marker on it, as it was painted black (as was part of the spite fence) to provide a better background. If the outfield was a true rectangle, that corner would figure to be 470 and a fraction, and exact straightaway center would have been 468. The distance was usually listed as 468 in the Guides, and when the Phillies brought the fence inward somewhat, it was finally marked, as 447. But it appears that the time-honored 468 wasn't absolutely correct. This only points out that official distances can be deceiving. Fenway's left field was marked as 315 for a few generations, but now it's marked 310, and I don't think they moved the diamond, they just messed up somewhere along the way. That opens a can of worms I don't want to get into here, unless you ask. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. (the caption). Bugs, interesting stuff above — would go great as a beefy footnote like number 49. Sourcing is a little more relaxed in an informational footnote, but we'll still need some. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. It might be worthwhile to add the link to the Temple archives of that photo from the third base side, as an implied source for the wording on the sign. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hold on that till somebody challenges. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added some text in the vicinity of the 1943 photo to support the photo and added two cites. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs/Harry: How long does it take before the discussion is considered "closed" on the Shibe images? Is there a fixed date that these entries last? Both of them have nothing but "Keeps". Delaywavestalk•contribs 18:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: It seems to vary. I never "lost" one from The Commons, only from non-free use uploads. Have any of the images nominated at the same time been closed out yet? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was it "closed-keep" or "closed-delete"? Seems odd to me that (at least in the non-free area) a user can come by, make a judgment about which side's argument was better, and then delete it without any accountability to anyone, as happened with Fastily and the stamp image. The last I saw, a voter had added a big green check mark to your Shibe images — was that just ornamental, or was it some final decree? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closed one was kept... I think, although it seems they reopened it right after the discussion ended. [37] If you're talking about the green check that says "This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 5 August 2011 by the administrator or reviewer Leoboudv, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the above license on that date," then that doesn't end the discussion. Leboudv said on the entry that he would put that there because it was under that license on Flickr, even if some think it wasn't taken by NHH. (And I believe Leoboudv agrees that it was.) It's definitely flawed - I think there should be some sort of super majority vote system. If 5 people want to delete some image and 4 want to keep it, then that shouldn't decide it, but if, say, 15 want to delete it and 5 don't, it should automatically be deleted. Delaywavestalk•contribs 21:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got the color wrong on that check mark — it's just ornamental. It's only been since Aug 4th it was nominated, I think you're going to have to sweat a few more days, compadre. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked an admin at commons about the length of time for a deletion discussion. He said that conventionally it's a week at minimum before closing it, but there's no telling when they'll get around to actually closing it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! When we're done with all this Forbes stuff, I/we should look through NHH's Flickr photos and see which of them we should upload. Delaywavestalk•contribs 16:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects
On a different note, are you any good at redirects? I'm trying to figure out how to get "Alejandro Pompez" to redirect to "Alex Pompez, but the WP:Redirect page has thoroughly confused me. Delaywavestalk•contribs 21:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect process is simple. You either create a new page, or if it already exists, blank the content. Then you put a pound sign and the word REDIRECT, then a space, then the article name in double square brackets like any other reference. Leave it to wikipedia to turn a simple process into a Rube Goldberg machine. Redirects are sometimes challenged, but usually only if they're controversial, such as redirecting "Idiot" to a public figure. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got another Flickr guy to change the license of a bunch of cool Crosley Field photos that his father had taken in the 1940s or '50s, I think. I made sure he put that his father took them in the photo descriptions, to avoid more of this nonsense. The captions will be a bit tough, since he doesn't seem to know much about the dates, other than that they were taken "over 60 years ago." Feel free to improve my captions if you want. Delaywavestalk•contribs 01:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A little fuzzy, but it looks like they're playing the New York Giants. I'm wondering if that right field area is the "inner fence" that they had for awhile, as if the outfield wasn't small enough already. Either way, that would date it to some extent. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Clem,[38] the right field inner fence was there from 1942 through 1957. However, the straight-across backstop he shows as only beginning in 1958. That doesn't mean Clem is gospel, though. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you've got better eyesight than me. Did you read the scoreboard? Also, did Crosley have an incline all around the field, or in center field, not just in left? The LF one is all that gets publicized, but look at this. I guess that could still be considered a bit left of center, but I always pictured the slope as being straightaway left and that's it. Delaywavestalk•contribs 01:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the field was somewhat below street level, and the terrace went all across, although it was most prominent in left and fairly prominent in center. Not too significant in right, as I recall. The block had somewhat of an upslope from south to north. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This looks promising. The shot I just linked to, which I just uploaded, has a clear shot of the scoreboard when you zoom in. (Although the rest of it could use some restoration.) I wonder if some detective work using that info could lead to the date of the photo. I'll start with the uniform numbers in the lineup. It's definitely from a different game than the b&w photo. Delaywavestalk•contribs 02:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be August 11, 1946. I sort of wasted my time; one guy commented on that photo on Flickr with all the answers. Since absolutely everything on the scoreboard matches up with the real-life uniform numbers and schedule, should I change the date on that image? I know original research is frowned upon, but this seems awfully solid. Delaywavestalk•contribs 02:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Retrosheet entry for the first game of the Reds doubleheader on 8/11/46:[39] If the facts square with what the guy says on Flickr, then go ahead. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, already checked it with Baseball-Reference and they match up. I'll change it now. Delaywavestalk•contribs 04:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that photo subliminally points out is that the field dimensions listed in the Crosley article are incorrect. Left center had two signs, one on either side of the scoreboard: 382 and 383. The 382 was redone as 378 when the scoreboard was enlarged ca. 1960. Deep right center was 387, redone as 390 at some point. That figure was usually given as the center field distance, it being the deepest part. Straightaway center was never marked. Right center was 360, right field line was 366 - one of the few cases where the power alley was shallower than the line. A ballpark that size nowadays, it would rain home runs. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the billboards outside the park appear to be the same in both photos. So it's likely the black-and-white is also from 1946. I can't read the board very well in the black-and-white, but there were only 2 NL cities with a space in their names: New York and St. Louis, and their positions on the board are fairly obvious. Looking at Retrosheet again, the Reds hosted the Giants on May 5 and 7; June 10, 11 and 12; July 20 and 21; August 20 and 21. Unfortunately, I can't tell who's at St. Louis, and it may not matter, as the schedule makers have some repeats in the schedule during the year. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You two guys are dazzling detectives! The Crosley Field article is looking great — wish the LOC had old shots of Crosley, Forbes, Sportsman's, et. al. like they do on Shibe, the NY parks, etc. The Crosley article infobox reminded me that, in the old days, By Saam used to open road games on the radio with the ballpark's street address: "Good evening from Crosley Field, Findlay Street and Western Avenue, in Cincinnati, Ohio..." Sounds so quaint today... — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that they always referred to its location as Findlay and Western, even after home plate was moved from that southeast corner to the southwest corner. Likewise with Tiger Stadium at Michigan and Trumbull. Target Field at "One Twins Way" only evokes yawns. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: Glad you like 'em. There are some Forbes photos at the LOC, but there really just isn't any space in the article to put them. Maybe I'll try adding some text at some point. Bugs: Are you sure that billboard logic works? Did billboards typically last only one season back then? It definitely shows that they're the same era, but I dunno about the same year. A couple of the Crosley shots are in such bad condition, how would you feel if I posted on that WikiProject Baseball page and asked if anyone could restore them? Would that be OK if I'm not a member? Delaywavestalk•contribs 16:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay: You're right, there are some good Forbes shots at LOC. We gotta figure a way to get 'em in. First thought is to lose the pullquotes (which aren't very distinguished). Also, I noticed they exist in hi-rez tiff form at LOC. Maybe a Gallery section gets 'em in until we can figure a better way to integrate 'em. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Billboards tended to change at least somewhat from year to year. No guarantee it's 1946, but it must be close to that. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you don't mind. You're better at the tiffs than I am, and Phils vs. Dodgers is on soon and I ain't made my dogs and kraut yet. Also, we oughtta touch-up the captions at Forbes. Is there an editor(s) there who'll resent our efforts? Grsz11 looks like s/he made a lot of contributions; do we know him/her? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Grsz11 hasn't edited Forbes since May, 2009, so I think we're OK. This is interesting: one of the Forbes photos they have on the LOC is actually 5 photos that I guess were made with the intention of a panorama. I would have no problem uploading them all separately, but the thing is, they all have the same Digital ID. If I upload them separately anyway, should I still include the LOC image template?
On a different note, through various luck-related reasons, I have front-row, field level seats at tonight's Angels-Yankees game. I hope to get some pretty good photos to upload. Can't wait! Delaywavestalk•contribs 20:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! How was the game? Phils-Dodgers was a nail-biter but Phils prevailed 9–8, making them 9–and–1 on their 10-game west coast road trip. As for Forbes, I'd use this in the source box, "Detroit Publishing Company" in the author box, and the {PD-Detroit} template in the permission box. Question before upload: the framings are odd because of the intended panoramic assembly. Do we re-crop and present as singles, or attempt an assembly? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they can go together seamlessly, which is unlikely, I recommend lining them up as best as you can, with a thin black line of 1 or 2 pixels width between each frame. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking we should do them separately, but if you want to do them in a panorama form, that's OK. You'll have to find someone else, though, as basic as it seems, I don't think I have any programs that can attach all the images together without losing quality. Maybe I should upload them all separately, and then find someone who can stitch them together perfectly? Delaywavestalk•contribs 04:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better at Forbes Field, I think it's best to put them up as a gallery, in hi-rez, for readers (like us) interested in minute arcane details. Might even leave the rough edges on 'em since they're out of context and so damn old. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can arrange them left-to-right in the gallery, that might be good. Or, you could do it both ways for those who would like to see the full panorama (maybe in a reduced size). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Left-to-right, five-wide, in the gallery — a capital idea, Bugs! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would we call it? "Gallery: 1910s panorama"? Delaywavestalk•contribs 21:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And should I go ahead and crop them, even if we're not stitching them? Just want to make sure we're clear on everything before I upload. Delaywavestalk•contribs 21:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. In this particular instance, think about a brief explanatory line above the pictures, then just numbers 1–5 as captions. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are gorgeously clear photos. This'll be a nice add to this page! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advise against cropping. Leave the authenticating edges on, I say. They're relics, and the edges make 'em more, uh, alluring. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it's taking so long, the images' resolutions are so high that they're slowing down my whole computer and making the uploading process slower. They'll be up soon. Delaywavestalk•contribs 00:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're up! Change anything you want, especially the gallery description, which still doesn't look great to me. Delaywavestalk•contribs 02:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow it looks great! You guys outdid yourselves on this one. I actually like 'em better unstitched — makes it easier to pick 'em up with your tweezers and hold 'em close to your eyes. Really good job! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome photos! They used a camera with a large (probably glass plate) negative, and captured a tremendous amount of detail. You can tell from subtleties that the pictures were not all taken simultaneously, just back-to-back as quickly as the photographer could switch the plates. My guess is that it's opening day 1909, and you can tell that the park is still under construction. Note the pipes and other loose / hazardous objects sitting in that very-large right field corner area. Also note how the left field foul pole hits the bleacher section in the middle, making for a steep angle. That was done in a number of ballparks of that era, I don't know why, although it may have had something to do with helping the umpire judge fair-or-foul. Yankee Stadium also had a feature like that, in right field, in its first season. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think this is one of our best contributions yet; the details on each photo are superb! Credit to you guys for envisioning how good the un-cropped, un-stitched, lined-up-in-order gallery would look. This is a little less technical than all of Bugs' observations, but check out the second photo. There's one square building with six windows visible, facing the field: if you look closely, in the top-left window you can see two little girls looking out onto the field, and in the window below them, a woman in a dress. Pretty neat, huh? Delaywavestalk•contribs 03:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And in the 5th photo, in the building in the b/g, three floors down from the top, and three windows in from the right, a man is looking out. The detail is so stunning, you can tell the man is fat! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All this detail reminds me of a great site I found recently, gigapan.org. Have you guys seen it? It's just a site full of unbelievably high-res panoramas, my favorite is this one of the old Yankee Stadium.
I notice that one of the teams — I'm assuming the visitors — has extremely dark uniforms. Do we know which NL team(s) had extremely dark road uniforms in 1909? They're occupying the third base side dugout. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Here's a page of all the 1909 NL uniforms, and the one that seems possible is the Phillies. I've seen photos from that site before and they tend to tone the colors down a bit, so I'm assuming that grayish Phils uniform was actually black. They appear pretty plain in the photo, I don't see any sort of logo on the shirt, and that Phils uniform only has a small "P". Delaywavestalk•contribs 04:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the Tigers had dark uniforms, then our photos might have been from the 1909 World Series. Here's the Retrosheet page for Forbes's 1909 game log, if you want to consult. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couldda been Cinncy, too. They seem to have been the second visiting team at Forbes in '09. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, I'll tell you, Delay, that Forbes Gallery really looks great. I salute you, sir. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but really, it was you guys' brainchild. I did the easy part. I hate to distract from our great work at Forbes, but it's really bugging me that Sportsman's Park still doesn't have any free images. There are no Creative Commons images of it on Flickr (and no amateur-ish shots that I could try doing some convincing work on.) A while ago I came across some photos like this from the Chicago Daily News LOC collection that show some St. Louis ballpark that I guess was the early version of Sportsman's. I'll upload one of those for the "1902 and 1909 structures" section, but I'd love to find a shot from the '40s-'60s era. Are there any other sites that could have one? Could Baseball Fever have some un-renewed copyright shots? Delaywavestalk•contribs 04:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting "Temporary file not found. Display failed." on that link. I'd like to take a look at it and see if I can identify it. I've never seen much on Sportsman's Park beyond a handful of widely-circulated pics. The color photo from the first base side is from a guy's collection, and while he was willing to give that one to wikipedia, he held on to the rest of them. I think they're all from the "Busch Stadium" era in any case, i.e. the 50s and early 60s. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I looked for some Sportsman's shots, too, and came up empty. But — here's one that The King of Tiffs might want to put up at Tiger Stadium: Navin at LOC . — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry: Yeah, that website gives me error messages sometimes, too. Just google "Chicago Daily News Negatives Collection," click on the first link, click "search by keyword," search "baseball," and the photo I like is number 69, "White Sox baseball players, standing in defensive position and St. Louis Browns baserunners, running the bases on the field." Bugs: That photo is already up in the Tiger Stadium photo gallery. Delaywavestalk•contribs 14:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Daily News item, and then went looking for old Sportsman's Park pictures. This one[40] is obviously the same ballpark as in the Daily News picture. When the Browns moved in from Milwaukee in 1902, they built a quarter-circle stand in the northwest corner of the block. In 1909, the built a new double-deck, steel-and-concrete stand in the southwest corner, which became the nucleus of the "modern" version of Sportsman's Park. The quarter-circle stands were retained as left field seating for awhile, eventually being ripped out when the main stands were extended and the permanent bleachers constructed. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Bugs, I was thinking you had posted the comment about the Navin Field photo. So these Daily News photos still count as Sportsman's Park, right? I don't see any other names used, even if the diamond was in a different place. This guy has great shots of Sportsman's in the era we're looking for, and even has a link to the Wikipedia page about it. Is there some way to get permission to use his photos? Delaywavestalk•contribs 19:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the guy, Bernard Waxman. I communicated with him a couple of years ago. You could try. :) Regarding Sportsman's Park, for whatever reason they kept the name the same and tended to refer to it as just one park, even though the diamond migrated from southeast to northwest to southeast over the years. So, yes, it's all the same park. The park better known as Robison Field, a few blocks northwest of it, was originally called "New Sportsman's Park". It must have been interesting having the two teams within walking distance of each other for a couple of decades - as with Boston and especially Philadelphia. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me, the panorama shot is in the Tiger gallery. Why they have that vast expanse of gray tundra, then have images cloistered in a gallery and not sprinkled throughout the gray, is a mystery to me. Yeah, I wish that fella would release his Sportsman's shots to Wiki. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick non-Sportsman's-related thing: I think I'm gonna go to the Commons Graphic Lab and ask if anyone can help restore some of those Crosley photos. Those people seem pretty good. Any objections? Delaywavestalk•contribs 03:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose anyone has asked the contributor whether the original negatives still exist? If so, they could be scanned. And by the way, most of Waxman's pictures are taken from slides. He told me (when we e-mailed a couple of years ago) that he had rigged up an apparatus to take high-quality digital pictures of those slides. Probably cheaper than having them scanned. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scans of negatives, rather than of prints made from them, yield astonishing detail. It's amazing how much gets lost in that neg-to-paper generational jump. Slides scan extremely well, too. The paper is the culprit in the chain. You both probably knew that already. <sheepishly> — HarringtonSmith (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know with absolute certainty, but I think it's the size of the print and of the negative that really impact the detail. You can't beat the original. As I've discovered, even junky old Instamatic shots from the early 70s look pretty good when the negatives are scanned. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask. I'm just concerned that he might want to retain copyright, and I don't know if wikipedia allows that. I think NOT. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, you meant the Sportsman's guy. I thought you meant the Crosley guy, since we had been talking about him before. If we're talking about Sportsman's, I think I should ask him first whether he would give them to us before I ask about negatives. By the way, how exactly would we get him to give them to us? I think you're right that he can't retain copyright, and I think if he dedicates it to the Public Domain, he has to agree to some fancy email and we have to archive it or something like that. I have no idea how to do that. Delaywavestalk•contribs 19:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you could ask him to upload them himself to commons under the "own work" permission. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like it could be easier. Bugs, you said you talked to him a while ago without any luck. Did he seem uninterested, or did it just fizzle out? Delaywavestalk•contribs 20:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a couple of years, and I don't have access to the old e-mails at the moment, and don't recall the details; but what you could do is to link to his site where he uploaded his pictures.[41] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sent him an email with the suggestion that making his own account would be easiest. Hope this works! Delaywavestalk•contribs 01:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Pierce
As I feared, you pic of the Billy Pierce statue won't be allowed in wikipedia. That's because of an annoying factor called Freedom of Panorama, which is not allowed in the USA as per copyright laws. It seems silly, given that it's out in public. And I'm sure there are plenty of Google Images pics, all of which theoretically violate that law. But on wikipedia it's not allowed. >:( Or note the English-challenged version, "Fredoom of Panorma".[42] ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had actually read something about that rule while ago, and no matter how stupid it may be, it was my fault for forgetting it. Delaywavestalk•contribs 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsman's, etc.
Bugs/Harry: Still no word from the Sportsman's guy, I guess he isn't interested. Since I don't have anything specific to do right now, I'm gonna update those HABS pictures of Memorial Stad. and Roosevelt with the TIFF versions. The Flickr people aren't as great as I was thinking they were - I've messaged quite a few people who have photos of various demolished ballparks, and not one of them has replied. NHH posted some nice shots that I uploaded of the Oakland Coliseum, one of which shows the view before "Mount Davis," a beautiful sight. Delaywavestalk 04:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shucks. I was hoping he'd jump right in and participate. I'm eager to see the Roosevelt TIFFs; I like what you did with that article. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Favor
Hey. Would you be able to find out whether or not this series of baseball cards has fallen into the public domain? Since the company is owned by Donruss probably not, but based on the databases I looked through the copyright may not have been renewed. I ask since I have an FA hitting the main page soon, and the only baseball card/image of him seems to be in that batch. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 18:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll err on the side of caution and not upload them then. Thanks for the other note as well, that's going to be going on for at least a couple years yet. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 04:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yessir, that's the very one, and your lightening was just what the doctor ordered. I think it looks much better now, don't you? Regarding the decompressed aspect ratio, I will say that the new, deeper picture causes a couple-line band of whitespace on my widescreen monitor right below the headline "1909: Play ball!" (but I doubt it shows on your monitor). I personally wouldn't mind if we went back to the shallower version — I think it works better with the other shots in the stack — but I'm tickled pink with the enhanced detail you brought out. That's some ornate decoration there, isn't it? If you didn't notice it, Shibe Park got a fan letter from Smel4727, who is a longtime editor to baseball and stadium articles. In my note of thanks to him, I mentioned yours and Bugs's hard work on the story. Nice to get a notice from outside us three musketeers about it (although the "well-written" rating has four votes! Maybe my son dropped by and reviewed us!) Thanks again for helping out with that lightening-job — sorry to be so tardy getting back, but I haven't been feeling my best. Did you have AC throughout Irene? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, I was thinking that the compressed version wasn't too bad as well. OK, I took your previous version and lightened that. It's not showing up in the article yet, but it should later. Speaking of ornate decoration, I recently saw a news clip online about the construction of Heritage Field, the ballfields on the old Yankee Stadium site. For just a second, as the voice in the background of the video said something like, "Relics from the old stadium will be brought over," they showed a photo of one of these beautiful, original terracotta motifs. How great would it be if they brought a few of those over? They already installed a piece of the old frieze there, which looks pretty cool. I did notice that fan letter - nice to get recognized! Yep, I pretty much slept through the whole thing, and it really died down quite a bit once it reached us. You must've been hit hard. Get well soon! Delaywavestalk 14:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not hit hard at all; my only prayer was that I didn't lose AC, and I didn't. I put up two photos you may already have seen, but I thought you'd want a tap on the shoulder anyway. The top one refused to come over in TIFF form, but it's the bottom one I really wanted to call your attention to: it's the only shot I've seen of the exterior of the uncovered outfield pavilions before the 1913 expansion. All the photogs always stood up at Twenty-first and Lehigh, not Twenti-eth and Lehigh. Except this guy. We're really full-up at Shibe, so I posted 'em on 1911 World Series. Regards — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for directing me to those shots, I guess I've seen them before but I'd never really paid attention to them, especially that one from 20th and Lehigh. Good call posting them on the World Series page - I still haven't found a place for that PG shot with Yankee Stadium in the background other than that gallery. Maybe I should put it on the '23 WS article, seeing as the Yanks and Giants played each other that year. Delaywavestalk 01:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Play Ball Baseball Cards
I did a copyright check on the Play Ball baseball cards from 1939 to 1941 around the time i did the Goudey and Bowman check and they are PD-not-renewed. That's a whole new series of baseball cards that you can upload. Thanks Secretaccount 06:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could use a new template for these cards. Thanks Secretaccount 18:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsman's Park from Flickr
Excellent! Yes, not technically superior, but still capture a bit of the flavor. It's funny to see Falstaff advertised on the scoreboard. Obviously, that was replaced when Gussie Busch bought the team in the early 50s. The middle picture shows a guy pantomiming swinging a bat. Looks like that would be the actor Joe E. Brown, who was a sportsman himself. The guy with the big grin standing behind him is probably Commissioner Happy Chandler. The guy to the right, one row back, with a noticeable kerchief in his suit pocket, might be Cardinals owner Fred Saigh. I don't recognize anyone else. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and Bugs: The guy is back, insisting on spelling out the various seating capacities at Shibe over the years. This is his third time in with this stuff, his first time outside the infobox. He's done it at a bunch of parks, as usual. To me, it's annoying clutter and should go. Is this arcane information important to you guys? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thought: I could put it in as footnote, so it's in there, but not clogging traffic going in to the Gallery. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea. Whether the figures are accurate or not, they really don't add significant info. The idea is to get an approximate idea of the size of the park after various expansions and remodelings. If the figures could be tied to those projects, they would be more meaningful. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. He's doing it on a whole bunch of ballparks. Maybe use Shibe as a model and then the others could be modified the same way once the approach is refined. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the figures seem to be very wrong. They start out 1,000 seats less in 1909 than the other sources say, and worse, there is no "bump" in 1913 when a major expansion added the left field bleachers. It doesn't show the 2,500-seat expansion in 1949 that Wescott write about. In fact, the Baseball Almanac figures just flutter back and forth between 30,000 and 33-and-change from 1925 to 1970 despite a second deck on the left field bleachers and several smaller expansions. Wonder if his other stadium article adds are as dubious. I can live with the footnote concept, but not if the numbers are wrong. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He struck Griffith, too. If his numbers are wrong, this definitely needs to be stopped. IP's can't be blocked, can they? The footnote idea sounds good, or at least if the numbers were correct it would. Delaywavestalk 23:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at his history and I think you will find he's hitting up many of the jewel boxes. It might be good-faith activity, but it's wrong-headed. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought: should I try leaving him some sort of message (as opposed to all the bot notices he's got on his talk page), trying to work it out and letting him know the info is wrong? Or should it be handled without contacting him? Delaywavestalk 00:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His source is Baseball Almanac.com, which you would expect to be a good source, but as I said above, the Shibe stuff is all wrong. Bugs, what's a jewel box? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "jewel box ballparks",[43] i.e. the classics of roughly the 1910-1960 era. Baseball Almanac takes from other sources, including the Lowry books which list all kinds of stuff from different (and questionable or at least contradictory) sources. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, Bugs. Regarding this fellow's additions, I think Bugs said it best: It might be good-faith activity, but it's wrong-headed. If the other parks are as wrong as Shibe's, I'm thinking we just ought to dump 'em. I just don't think it adds to the articles. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if even Baseball Almanac is that flawed, I can't imagine we could get different info elsewhere that is unquestionably true. Delaywavestalk 19:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'd just like to see a reflection in the figures of construction we know occurred in a given year, and I just don't see the "spikes" coming where they ought to. And even if the figures were right, I think naked numbers like these are nothing more than a footnote. I'm thinking we just oughtta dump the section. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hid it. Give the guy the chance to supply better numbers, which I'll then move to a footnote. If he doesn't fix it in a week, then we'll dump it. What could be more fair? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Sporting News Baseball Guide for only 1959-1969, and it squares with the figures the guy posted. That doesn't say it's all accurate, by any stretch. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a strange place for the figures to be inaccurate. You'd think the Sporting News would know how many people a ballpark could hold each year. Still, it's true, the numbers just don't make sense. The hiding idea sounds good, Harry. Delaywavestalk 02:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it's trivial. 33,359 vs. 33,608? They might have added a few chairs somewhere, or they might have miscounted the first time. Or the figure might be whatever the club felt like reporting. For many years, Dodger Stadium was listed as exactly 56,000. The individual levels were all very exacting, but they miraculously added up to exactly 56,000. Yeh, right. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay and Bugs: I moved that preposterous listing of seating capacity over the years at Griffith Stadium to a footnote. If you agree that this is the way to handle this fellow, perhaps we have a prototype here of how to do it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like it - at first I was hesitant because of the inaccurate info from Shibe, but the "According to Baseball Almanac" part makes it look good to me.
On another note, I think our quest for some Sportsman's shots may be (somewhat) over; the Missouri State Archives have posted to their Flickr account quite a few baseball images identified in their descriptions as PD, although they were uploaded as "All Rights Reserved". Here's an example; no full views, but some nice shots. Sorry to go off topic, but thought this was nice. Delaywavestalk 00:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would upload them under the normal form, not the "from Flickr" one, if you guys agree. Delaywavestalk 00:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I noticed that too, but I believe I've figured out a way to download them anyway. I don't see anything on their "Community Guidelines" outlawing downloading images like that, and after all, they are in the Public Domain. Delaywavestalk 01:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, I think I made it sound a bit more complicated than it actually is - I just save the web page that includes the full size of the image, my computer then automatically creates a folder containing all the various "files" on the page, including the image. I enjoyed that brief moment of sounding like a tech whiz, though! Delaywavestalk 01:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the umpiring assignments, this looks to be Game 2.[44] Feel free to cross check. That would make the Boston pitcher Mickey Harris. Here's his picture at findagrave.[45] Hard telling if it's the same guy or not. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sabbatical
Delay and Bugs: Guys, I'm taking some time off from this place — I'm finding myself unable to "play well with others" anymore. I'm not sure when or if I'll be back. I did want to thank you both for our collaborations — they were the most fun and rewarding of my experiences on Wikipedia. If you need to reach me, Delay has my e-mail. Thanks again. Harry — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear you're leaving, but preserving your sanity is more important than any website. Good luck. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 12:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I too send my best wishes to you Harry. Thanks for all your work here and keep enjoying that Laurel and Hardy DVD set. MarnetteD | Talk 12:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun in your time off, but I do hope you return at some point. I was able to avoid much unwanted contact with others for quite a while, (except for you two, of course!) so perhaps you could try starting anew after a break. Have fun! Delaywavestalk 18:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And no problem, Marnette! The more, the merrier... Delaywavestalk 18:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas City
Nifty photos of the old Municipal Stadium (Kansas City). I'm looking at Retrosheet to see if I can figure out when that "ca. 1962" game was actually played. One thing I've determined: It was not 1962, unless it was an exhibition game. Also, if it's not already in the article, note that the scoreboard came from Braves Field.It is. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, I hadn't even noticed there was a readable scoreboard in that photo. An exhibition game seems like a definite possibility, considering the Yankees were the visiting team. I've always liked how quaint and peaceful the scenery beyond the outfield was there, a bit like the Dodger Stadium hills or the Memorial Stadium houses. Is that big raised portion of the CF wall supposed to be a batter's eye? Delaywavestalk 05:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found it. See below. Yes, that's the batter's eye. Hard telling why it was angled instead of straight up on the sides. Maybe more stable construction that way. I've seen others done like that. And, yes, a quiet area, a residential area. Note also that you can see part of the high screen in right field. After fooling around with the "pennant porch" for a few years, he took the opposite tack, moving the fences back to their original distances, and putting up a 44-foot screen in right. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
August 30, 1966, looks like a good bet.[46] Blue Moon Odom threw a 1-hitter that day. The innings and runs and hits match at that point (bottom of the 5th), and though they're hard to read, the names on the scoreboard seem to match up with the schedule (Chicago at Atlanta is missing - no room on the board, I guess). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the description of the bottom of the 5th, with the moment in the picture bolded:
"ATHLETICS 5TH: Charles flied to left in foul territory; Stahl popped to third in foul territory; Repoz singled to center; Cater singled to center [Repoz to second]; Stottlemyre threw a wild pitch [Cater to second, Repoz to third]; Gosger singled to left [Cater scored, Repoz scored]; Chavarria singled [Gosger to third]; Roof grounded out (pitcher to second to first); 2 R, 4H, 0 E, 2 LOB. Yankees 1, Athletics 4."
Danny Cater wore number 2 when he played for the Athletics, which squares with the board, as do the 2 outs in the inning. At that moment Cater had just gotten the A's 13th hit, so of course the board still read 12. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool! I modified the date in the image description and in its caption in the article. I hadn't noticed that small bit of the screen in RF; you've probably seen this wacky photo of the sheep that Finley apparently had grazing in the outfield for a time. Delaywavestalk 15:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like to ID photos places and times, when I can. I wonder if there's some way to notify the owners of the Missouri collection? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have an account on Flickr that I use often; I could post a comment notifying them, although I did a similar I.D. on one of their photos a while ago and posted a comment to that photo on Flickr, and they never responded. Perhaps we could try contacting the archives directly? Delaywavestalk 23:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I was thinking. It would be a courtesy to the archivists, I would think, to solve the implied mystery in that photo. To me, this changes the picture from some random snapshot to a specific moment in time. Not an earthshaking moment by any means, but it makes it more "real" somehow - it puts you in the seats at that moment. I had this same feeling when I figured out the exact moment captured in a photo from the 1906 World Series. Also, a photo of the scoreboard at Crosley Field, taken just before the Cardinals had a 10-run inning. I remember that, not because I was in Cincinnati, but because I was in Chicago, watching the scoreboard, waiting for the Cardinals inning to end after half an hour, and hearing the Wrigley Crowd gasp when they posted a "10" on the board. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that caption a while ago, I didn't realize you had added it. Great story about the 10-run inning - did you go to a lot of games in that era? How did you wind up visiting the abandoned Colt Stadium? Delaywavestalk 02:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added it in January of 2008, as one of a bunch of edits to the article.[47] I didn't go to all that many games, but something interesting always seemed to happen when I did. As for Colt Stadium, I just happened to be passing through the city, and whenever I'm in a city and get a chance, I'll usually take some ballpark photos. On this occasion, I took a tour of the Astrodome, and then realized that the old ballpark (or what was left of it) was still there, so I took a few shots of it. Supposedly it was eventually disassembled and sold to a Mexican team. I think they would have been better off using it for firewood, but whatever. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I posted to the Colt Stadium thread on Baseball Fever a week ago, asking if anyone had photos of the rebuilt one in Mexico. No one's replied yet. Delaywavestalk 14:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I've ever seen a photo of it re-assembled. Maybe it actually did end up as firewood. It was mostly wooden, you know. Robison Field is often called the last of the wooden major league ballparks, but I could argue that overall, Colt Stadium is. They didn't really expect to have to use it for 3 full years, but the Astrodome took longer to build than expected. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plaque
They've tagged your photo of the KC plaque for deletion. You might need to move that to wikipedia and tag it as fair-use. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea; do I need to notify anyone, or just re-upload it as fair use once this one gets deleted? Delaywavestalk 22:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in conversation with the guy that tagged it. We'll see what happens. You might want to look at the comment at the bottom of my talk page over there. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks for finding out! I've been pretty busy for the past couple of days but I'll upload it soon. Delaywavestalk 21:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before I upload it, what should go in the "Replaceability" field? Technically, a photo of the plaque is replaceable, and it's not the image on the plaque that we're uploading it for. Delaywavestalk 01:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "replaceability" figures into it. That usually has to do with demolished structures and dead people. The building is gone, but the plaque will be there awhile, unless someone steals it. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's up here; I couldn't find a copyright tag that related to derivative images contained within a photo, so I went with {Non-free historic image}. Feel free to improve if you see fit. Delaywavestalk 02:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a stab at your Anaheim Stadium image by making a composite. Let me know what you think. Centpacrr (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Arlington Stadium.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Alrighty. I was actually the one who removed it, because I thought the new free images I got were good enough, but we might as well keep that one. Delaywavestalk 14:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to you. I'm not married to it. I only restored it as a placeholder until you can decide whether you want it in the article. I would agree that it's not a great photo, but it does provide a different angle look at the outfield. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Polo Grounds video
Thought you'd like this, Bugs; I just came across a link to footage of the 1917 World Series at the Polo Grounds. The site seems to have many other baseball clips, of which I haven't watched any yet. Delaywavestalk 22:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Delaywaves. You have new messages at Killervogel5's talk page. Message added 12:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Your request for rollback
Hi Delaywaves. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! SalvioLet's talk about it! 11:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! I noticed your addition of File:Forbes Field during 1925 World Series.jpg and File:Griffith Stadium during 1925 World Series.jpg. These are actually both Griffith Stadium. You can tell if you put them side-by-side and note the portion of the field and stands which appears in both photos. If you look closely you can probably see some of the same hats in the box-seat wearers. Both photos were taken in the far end of the third base pavilion upper deck. So we know they're the same ballpark. Now, how do we know it's Griffith specifically? By Griffith's unique "split-level" arrangement of the roofs - the newer pavilion seating wings being higher (more rows) than the older, main stands. Plus various other details that corroborate. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your assistance is welcome
I've been doing some work on the umpire articles and I just created one for a rather notable ex-ump, Bill Hohn. I've observed that you have done quite a lot of work on the umpires, and any contributions you might be interested in bringing to this article would be greatly appreciated (if, of course, it's not any trouble). AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks for your help. If you would like, I can let you know whenever I add another umpire page. Of course, if you'd rather not have the interruptions, I'll understand. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
For all of the work you have done on umpire pages and also your willingness to be helpful! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been toying with the idea of creating an umpire portal and I wanted to get your input, seeing as you're likely to be more involved with umpire pages than anyone else I've interacted with. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea, and perhaps a better one at the present, is to start a WikiProject to focus on umpire pages. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you liked the idea. I will try to figure out how to get the WikiProject up off the ground. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The project proposal is here. Please feel free to weigh in and add your name to the list of interested persons. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By the way, I changed the caption on the Reynolds photo to "Reynolds in 2012". Based on the file name, I assume that's correct, but you can undo it if not. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an FYI, your user page was vandalized a couple of times by an IP editor. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I have a feeling that if the pattern holds true, my first will be next. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umpires Task Force
I'm sure you will be glad to know that an umpires task force has been created as part of the Baseball WikiProject. That taskforce page can be found here, although it still needs some polishing up. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate any help you could provide in designing a userbox and a tag to be added to the WikiProject banner on the appropriate article talk pages. I don't believe I will have the capability to do so myself. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Userbox looks great. I eagerly await the banner. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea. Once we get the tag thing figured out, the task force will likely be well on its way (I hope). AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got your message and I wish you a nice vacation. Hopefully there will be dramatic improvements when you return. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minor edit
Hi there. Recently you made some changes to the Esmil Rogers article. While I realize most of the bytes added were in regards to references, you did, however slightly, edit the lead. Since the lead is such a critical part to any article, I would encourage you to avoid classifying any edits dealing with the lead as "minor" unless it was fixing spelling, for example. See Help:Minor edit for more info. on what is classified as a minor edit. Zepppep (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clarence J. McLeod, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George O'Brien and Charles A. Nichols (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Colton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages J.D. and St. John's University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Wiki-Project subproject
Hi Delaywaves, Automatic Strikeout and I have started a new sub-project off of the NFL Wiki-Project dedicated to referees. It can be found here. I know you're involved in the Umpires taskforce and thought that maybe you were interested in their football counterparts. It's in the frantic organizational stage at the moment, but feel free to jump in. Thanks! Go Phightins! (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this proves anything, but the French description on the Commons photo indicates it's a design conception. There is something kind of fake-looking about the picture, but without having the full-sized original it's hard to tell. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 11:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before putting it back the way it was, it might be worth investigating the source of the photo, to be sure it even belongs here. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ellis E. Patterson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elizabeth Esty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Murphy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Juan Vargas
Hello! I see that you are an expert with political infoboxes, while I am clueless with them. Could you please take a look at the infobox for Juan Vargas? Somehow the third entry in the infobox (2000-2006) reads "Member of the U.S. House of Representatives", instead of "Member of the California State Assembly" from California's 79th district, as it should. When I tried to fix the infobox I couldn't see where the error is. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Secretaccount is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Bera pic
Much better image of Congressman elect Bera! Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Cisneros
Re: [49]. Just out of curiosity, who is the first in this context? I'm assuming you're not saying Juan Seguin was. Kuru(talk) 16:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Raúl Ruiz
Hiya, I'm against this on WP:PRIMARY but as a side track I thought I'd check with you anyway, was dropping the ú on the filmmaker in redbox a copy-paste error? If so you may wish to paste it into the template, the RM will update with it automatically. Cheers! In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have modified the process for adding Nominations, which now uses a template/table format and requires only 3 supports for an article to be selected.
There is now a Holding Area, where articles are kept for discussion before being selected for a particular date.
The TAFI schedule now involves adding 10 articles weekly, chosen from a variety of topics.
We now have an Accomplishments page where we will be highlighting our older TAFI articles which have now become quality articles on the Wikipedia.
The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page.
If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area.
Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(From the TAFI team)
Shelley Mayer
FYI a person does not get listed in both a People From Category and its parent. When making the Mayer article you linked to both People from Yonkers, New York and People from Westchester County, New York. I have removed the Westchester County link....William 20:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A cheeseburger for you!
Hello Delaywaves! Just thought I'd drop by and say Hello, since it has been a while since we last interacted. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Y. McCollister, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glenn Cunningham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clem McSpadden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ed Edmondson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is you favorite?
With all the photos you have been involved in, I was just curious..."Which one is your favorite.?". "Which one are you proudest of?" Thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Takes a deep breath, hopes for a yes
AutomaticStrikeout would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact AutomaticStrikout to accept or decline the nomination. If you accept this offer, a page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Delaywaves. You must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Editor of the Week
Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for image uploads and article writing, particularly related to umpires. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
Delaywaves(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) has been a Wikipedian for slightly over two years and during that time, they have uploaded many quality images to the Commons and also have created quite a few articles, many of which are of interest to me due to my work with the umpire's task force. In fact, this user has helped find images for me upon request on more than one occasion. Delaywaves has made over 5,000 edits and seems to be specializing in photos, baseball and politics, but aside from being awarded the rollback user right and a couple of barnstars, their hard work appears to be going mostly unrecognized. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT)
You can copy the following text to your user page to displayAS a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Thanks again for your efforts! GoPhightins! 17:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your photos have added so very much to the Encyclopedia. So has you spirit. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you so much everyone! I certainly wasn't expecting this. AS, Phightins, and Buster, all of your contributions are incredibly valuable as well, so it means a tremendous amount to have this coming from you. As the box above says, this selection shows that my work hasn't gone completely unrecognized, and that's all I can really ask for. Thanks again for your incredibly kind words! Delaywaves • talk 23:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! And keep up the good work. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and Thank you for your brilliant work on Wikipedia! We really appreciate it! Editors like you keep our encycopedia interesting and complete! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks so much everyone!Delaywaves • talk 02:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In his 2 years at Wikipedia, Delaywaves has created almost 800 photos and pictures, many of them related to New York and Baseball. The scope of his edits focusses on adding photos to articles, or starting stubs about obscure politicians and baseball players. With very little experience in the "nitty gritty" aspects of Wikipedia, he would rather remain obscure.
Dolly Stark (umpire)