Talk:Chicago Cubs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Clutter

WTH? "Futility theory" section should die. Most of the stuff on there is repeated elsewhere in the article, or is unsourced, or has no place in an encyclopedia article. Some of it should be dumped into separate pages, or left out entirely. There's more talk about the Cubs sucking than the entire time period between the last WS appearance and 2003. Where's Ernie Banks? Ron Santo? Ryne Sandberg? Surely they're more important than a freakin goat. Phyrkrakr (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the current page (11/28/06) looks very cluttered?

Moving certain sections to subpages usually consolidates an article. Like the Chicago Bears article. --ShadowJester07 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand sports is rather dependant on color commentary but to use it in an encyclopedic entry could be confusing for those unfamiliar with it. One example in the article is: "one of a small handful of twirlers to pitch low-hit games in the post-season. " Plus I think the author probably means hurler instead of twirler, so if you're going to use color, get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.86.50 (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Twirler" is old-fashioned terminology for "pitcher", just as "hurler" is now (not to be confused with someone "throwing up" in the bullpen). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The realignment this is idiotic. Can we delete this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.88.212 (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Links

An article about a sports franchise is not a place to promote or provide links to a gay agenda.

If someone added an chapter about 2,000 Luthern League Youth attending a game to promote their pride, my comment would be the same.

Will Ohman

Is Will Ohman really German?? I konw he was born in West Germany, but I would assume on a miltiary base of some kind, if his father and/or mother worked in the military. He graduated high school in the states, so that could be a factor. So there fore should'nt he have the US flag next to his name similar to Tommy Phelps on the Milwaukee Brewers page.

• I agree. Ohman should have a US flag. --Veronique 23:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I went to high school with Ohman in Parker, Colo. He was born on a military base, and his father is a pastor. He should have a U.S. flag.

• • It appears that Ohman's flag has been changed to the German flag. I can't find a good reference either way that says he was born as a German citizen or as a U.S. citizen in Germany. Anyone has a good reference for this? --Terryn3 17:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Baseball Register says he was born in West Germany. That's probably not his fault, though. The question is, what is the policy (if any) about the flags? He is almost certainly a U.S. citizen. Wahkeenah 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If he is a naturalized U.S. citizen, I don't know, I can see both cases. But if he was born as the son of U.S. military personnel stationed in Germany, it would seem that the U.S. flag would be the only correct option. I've tried googling for a good bio on Ohman that gives enough history to clarify, without any luck. --Terryn3 18:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hawk

If LaTroy Hawkins does for the Giants' bullpen what he did for that of my Twins and my Cubs, they are doomed for this year. No quantity of Barry Bonds home runs, no matter when he returns to the lineup, can rescue the "Jints". There is currently no major league park large enough to contain the rockets that opposing batters launch off Hawk's pitches. 65.54.155.58 02:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

We need more pages!!!

I'm tired of seeing red everywhere!! We need create some more player/coach pages. I've created the Michael Wuertz, John Koronka, Jose Macias, Ryan Dempster (techically, since I wasn't registered when I created the Demspter page), Jason Dubois, Will Ohman, and Todd Wellemeyer, and Roberto Novoa pages and have moved and did significant editing to the Neifi Perez page. --CFIF 13:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

No question we need some quick blurbs on some of the Cubs greats from 100 years ago. I'll get on it when I have time. Wahkeenah 17:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I mean 25-man roster stuff, like Todd Wellemeyer, Todd Walker, etc., not people from 100 years ago. --CFIF 17:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

On other team's pages, people attend to this stuff regularly, even posting their current won-lost record and such. Apparently no one has time for it on the Cubs page. d:( Wahkeenah 23:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, usually, for these biographies, it's not practical to post career stats and win-loss records on the player bios, as that changes all the time.....--CFIF June 28, 2005 13:51 (UTC)

Jim Hendry article

Would there be any objections to a Jim Hendry article linked from this page? Billy Beane has an article and I would argue that Hendry is a more significant GM than Beane.

While I'm at it, neither Brian Cashman (NYY) nor Theo Epstein (BOS) have articles - and they're both certainly significant figures in baseball (Cashman for his success, and Epstein for his youthful success).

StJarvitude 7 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. Though I don't think Hendry has had a book written about him, while Beane has. Jpers36 7 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)

Cubs-Astros pitching derby?

Has anyone ever heard of this or know anything about it? I've never heard of it and it's really confusing as to what it is refering to.

It's the product of the semi-fertile imagination of that character that has been posting the "Main Rivals" Point-of-View junk. Feel free to delete it. Wahkeenah 06:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Longest dry spell?

I'm not going to edit this article since I know little about baseball and would probably make a horrible mess of it, but this can't go unremarked:

It can't go without mention that the Cubs have the longest dry spell between championships in all of professional sports

No they don't. What about Preston North End F.C. in English football (soccer)? They won the Football League Championship in 1889-90, and have been in existence ever since without managing it again. Ditto Sheffield United F.C. (last championship 1897-98). Change the wording to "U. S. professional sports" and I'd agree. Loganberry (Talk) 23:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There are sports outside the United States??? >:) Wahkeenah 00:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yup. I edited it. I'm still not sure the wording 'longest dry spell between championships in all of [US] professional sports' is accurate. 'All of professional sports' is a wide range even if only confined to the US. johnsemlak 6 October 2005

I cleaned up the wording on that: The Cubs have the longest dry spell between championships in all of the five major U.S. sports leagues (MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, MLS),... I removed that amaturish "It can't go without mention"; I mean, who is it that is actually saying this, and why must it be said? Weasel term if you ask me.--CrazyTalk 04:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd be careful about that. Didn't the Cards go 1920-present without a major title win? Trekphiler 00:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the football variety. The football Cardinals won a title in either 1947 or 1948, so they have won a major title. Patken4 01:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Chicago Cardinals won the NFL title (before there were any playoffs) in 1925, then won their division and the league championship in 1947. They also won their division in 1948. Hardly a man is now alive who remembers the last Cardinals championship, and that was nearly 40 years after the last Cubs championship. A sobering thought. d:( Wahkeenah 02:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cubs vs White Stockings

Can we be more clear with references to the team being called the 'Cubs' and 'White Stockings' in the history section? The names 'Cubs' and 'White Stockings' used unclearly or incorrectly several times in that section. johnsemlak 4 October 2005

• Where? It looks clear enough to me. Wahkeenah 12:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

In the 5th paragraph of the 'White Stockings' section, under History, the team is referred to as the 'Cubs'. Also, when was the team called the Colts? The notes at the top of the page say the 'Late 1890s'. Could we have precise dates?

I think the history section would benefit from clearer explaination of the names. E.g. 'The franchise was originally named the 'Chicago White Stockings' after.... It was renamed ... in 18XX after ....' Etc.

Also, the St. Louis Browns are referred to as an opponent in the old NL vs AA World Series in 1882. This is accurate, but the article says this team would become a 'periennial rival', without mentioning that this team would be renamed the Cardinals. While this might be obvious to some fans, I doubt a lot of readers would immediately catch this. johnsemlak 6 October 2005

Is this line really necessary?

"With the World Series triumphs of the 2004 Boston Red Sox (after 86 years) and the 2005 Chicago White Sox (after 88 years), the Cubs will be faced with even more pressure in 2006 to break their championship drought"

This is speculation -- I'm not really convinced it belongs there, but I'm not going to just delete it because as a Cubs fan I'm not happy with the inevitable comparisons with both Sox teams, so I don't want this to veer into my POV. Any thoughts? -- gavindow 02:02, 31 October 2005

It's rather too obvious to bother stating, I should think. However, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the Cubs-Sox rivalry article, not here. Wahkeenah 05:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll give this a couple more days, if there are no more comments, I'm going to edit both this article and the rivalry page. -- gavindow 03:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Best team ever?

I've heard the '06 Cubs called that; it's N clear to me if the intent was "best NBL" or "best Cubs". Clarify & include? Trekphiler 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since they lost the '06 World Series, they can't be considered the "Best Ever", but they had the best regular season ever, percentagewise, in modern baseball. Several Yankees teams are the usual contenders for "best ever" when the Series is taken into account. Wahkeenah 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Took me a minute to figure out you were talking about the 1906 Cubs, not the 2006 Cubs (emphatically NOT the best team ever...) Mrquizzical 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not really. But they could still win this year's Series. If an earthquake swallows up the other National League teams. Wahkeenah 22:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• The 1927 Yankees are usually the team everyone goes back to as a benchmark. They were outstanding in both the regular season and the post-season, which doesn't always happen. Wahkeenah 22:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy Cow

How is there a Cubbies article with no reference made to Harry Caray, let alone Stoney? User:199.44.251.2 03:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• For some unknown reason, a separate article was created, linked to from the Cubs article: Chicago_Cubs/Broadcasters. Wahkeenah 04:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Now you have oneWjmummert 15:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

HOF List

Dizzy Dean had a legendary Pitching Performance in the World Series as a Cub.

Ford Frick award winners Harey Carey and Jack Brickhouse should be added to this list, while they are not "In the Hall" Per Se, they are referred to as "Hall of Fame Broadcaster..."

Ticket System

I have been searching the internet without any success as to how tickets are released. I have been checking the Cubs calendar for tickets for their home games and it seems like a week or so before a game, the Cubs release a set of tickets to the higher-priced sections, usually only having 1 or 2 contiguous seats available. Does anybody know the system that is used for releasing tickets?

Also, is there any way to find out what seats are actually available? It's a pain to go through the online ticketing and have to check every seating section for the tickets that the computer finds to be the "best". I'd much rather like to see a chart of wrigley field with indicators showing where available seats are located. It puzzles me as to why they have not set up such a system yet.

I'm actually going to e-mail someone from the Cubs organization to see if I can't find the answer to at least one of my questions. Dav2008 01:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• If all else fails, show up with plenty of cash, and I'm sure someone across the street from the ballpark will have good tickets for sale. Wahkeenah 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I sent them an e-mail and they basically said what I suspected originally. They said your best bet is to check tickets about a week before a game since that's when they begin to release them. Dav2008 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does everyone like the Cubs?

They aren't exactly the best team in MLB. The last time they won a World Series was before Arizona and New Mexico were part of the county. User:Jetpackfireman 11:00 pm, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple, the Cubs are the Greatest Franchise in Chicago, they always were, and awlays will be ;-). (I posted a more logical awnser on your talk page). ShadowJester07 04:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with liking the Cubs, I was just curious why they are the most popular team in Chicago. I myself do not like the Cubs. User:Jetpackfireman 5:28 pm, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Many of their games have been on WGN, which goes national on cable, for a while (like the Braves). Their home games are usually played during the day (no competition of other teams). They play in a very famous stadium. They are from a major city. There are many reasons why. Patken4 14:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This wasn't always true. In the early 1960s, the White Sox were a much better team and easily outdrew the Cubs. The turnaround started when WGN went to cable and to national TV, and the Sox (who had once been as much a part of WGN TV as the Cubs) made the ill-fated decision to switch to a local TV station that was carried only on area cable rather than national cable. That, coupled with the purchase of the Cubs by WGN's owner, the Tribune Company, vaulted the Cubs well ahead of the White Sox in terms of "fan interest", which is probably a little more truthful than saying that everyone "likes" the Cubs. Exposure, not necessarily team success, is what made the difference... although, if the Cubs had not had some occasional success under the Tribune Company, as they have, and which had been thoroughly lacking in the P.K. Wrigley years, maybe things would have turned out differently. Now the that Sox are tough again, and if the Cubs continue to flounder, and since WGN carries a notable number of Sox games, and fewer Cubs games than they used to, it will be interesting to see if fan interest shifts a bit. People do get tired of losers eventually. The citizens of Chicago would take issue with that, but a lot of folks in the outland might not be such die-hards. Wahkeenah 15:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that for the reason the Cubs are more popular in Chicago currently. I thought Jetpack was asking about the Cubs national following. Back in the 80's, if you lived in a town that wasn't close to a MLB team, you could watch pretty much every Cubs game on WGN (and most Braves games on WTBS and Mets games on WWOR) if you had cable. There were national tv games, but not like today. Because of that exposure, the Cubs gained more fans than teams that were better at that time because they were on tv.Patken4 19:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. And, oddly enough, this speaks to the vision of the much-maligned P.K. Wrigley. He allowed all the Cubs home games to be telecast on WGN, starting in the post-WWII era, and many said he was throwing money away. His reasoning was that constant availability of games would develop fan interest better than blackouts would. It might have cost him some revenue in the short run, but in the long term he was right on target... and WGN and the Tribune Company expanded that concept to the national level. Wahkeenah 19:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Cubs fan because my older brother grew up watching Ryne Sandberg and listening to Harry Caray. If I had to guess, I'd say that most people are Cubs fans because of Caray. Bshbass 21:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Sox are on WGN too. So the Sox are on national TV as well. WizardDuck 04:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ironic, isn't it? Wahkeenah 04:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Future Local Broadcasting Plans

Does anyone know what the plans are for local broadcasting of Cubs games in the Future? WGN is going to become some other network, and I'm not sure if the Tribune will still have ownership of it. ShadowJester07 04:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WGN's affiliation switch from The WB to The CW is expected to have no effect on its baseball telecasts. Lambertman 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton is a Cubs fan ... or is she?

I took the role of editing the part of the article stating that the Former First Lady under the Clinton Administration was a Cubs fan, y'know, considering her betrayal when she was seen with a Yankees fan all of her life.

• Politicians don't count, unless they were fans before they became politicians. For Ronald Reagan, it worked. For Hillary Clinton, I doubt it. However, if she only rooted for the Cubs and never for the Sox, then I suppose that counts for something. Wahkeenah 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• According to this article [1] she’s both a Cubs and Yankees Fan. Apparently, she finds it okay to live both since their in two different Leagues (AL/NL). --ShadowJester07 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That could work. However, like many politicians, I expect she just likes to be seen at events, whether she cares or not. Giuliani was a Yankees fan from youth, and he had to bite his tongue in 2000, since he had to remain officially neutral. It's also easy to be a Cubs fan and a Yankees fan, because then you're rooting from the sublime to the ridi... well, let's just say you're getting two different worlds. Wahkeenah 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Gay fan count

Since Wrigley Field is located in a middle of a gay village, is it possible as to say as this team has the most homosexual fans. I mean this team occassionally helds a Gay Pride Day during one of it's games. (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:falconleaf)

Well, that fact is rather irrelevant to the article. Moreover, that claim is questionable - the Toronto Blue Jays along with several other Baseball franchises also host "Gay Pride days". --ShadowJester07 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the first comment was a "plant" by a Sox fan. Wahkeenah 22:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a duel fan of the Toronto Blue Jays and the Houston Astros, I'm just surprised that the majority of gay baseball fans like the Cubs Falconleaf

I thought they liked the Giants. Wahkeenah 00:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope many like the Cubs, but I think it can vary on where your from. Falconleaf

I'm going to have to go with Wahkeenah, on this one, for the reason San Francisco has a higher percentage of gay men and lesbians than any other major U.S. city; versus Lake View, which is merely a neighborhood. --ShadowJester07 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But not every gay and lesbian is in San Francisco, of couse the Giants themselves have a large LBGT following, but the Cubs in my opinion are more closely followed than the Giants, plus Chicago has mroe people than San Francisco. Probably the Cubs and Giants are probably tied, but I don't know you just have to rely on blogging and some articles on something like this. Falconleaf

I reckon you would have to find some statistics. Maybe stand outside Wrigley and ask everyone as they enter the park. That would be entertaining. Wahkeenah 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Chicago may have more people than SF proper, but Chicago (est. 3 mil) definitely does not have more people than the Bay Area (est. 7 mil) in total which also counts. Personally, I've always wondered how the gay neighborhood cropped up around Wrigleyfield when drunken sports fans of any kind haven't been known for their acceptance of gay culture. --68.77.7.250 (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The area around Wrigley used to be, frankly, a dive. Now it's much more attractive. I'm guessing they were brought in to improve the interior and exterior decoration. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Man, I wish this section was actually an edit war so I could add it to WP:LAME, no offense to anyone though. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 03:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually have seen edit wars on talk pages, which is about as lame as it gets. However, what I said about the neighborhood being redecorated is, as I've heard it, not entirely a joke. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Falconleaf, please continue with the sweeping generalities and circular arguments about homosexuals and Wrigleyville. They make you seem more intelligent with every post. As to the neighborhood being redecorated, though, look no further than 2 blocks west of the stadium... see the Lakeview article. It's really a nice area. RMelon (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Falconleaf's last entry was nearly a year ago, and as you can see [2] he kind of went out with a bang. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway. Anyone can see for himself that Boystown is several blocks south of Wrigley anyway.Stylus Happenstance (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cap Anson

While I have no doubt that Cap Anson was a huge racist and a first-rate jerk, whether or not his views on race are "extreme" need to substantiated. Neither this page nor his bio at Cap Anson do so, so Anson is hereby upgraded from extreme racist to just racist awaiting substantiation. Terryn3 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe calling him an "extreme" racist was overkill, but there are degrees. Some bigots keep it to themselves, whereas Anson was very vocal about it, even for his generation. Maybe "outspoken" would be a better adjective. I'll ponder that. Wahkeenah 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cubs & Cards fan input requested

The article on the Cubs-Cardinal rivalry, I-55 Series has been nominated for Good Article status, and I would like to get some input on things that can improve the article. Being a Cards fan myself, I am very interested in maintaining an NPOV tone with fair consideration to both teams. Thanks! Agne 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

started discussion at Talk:I-55_Series, since I'm sure Cubs and Cards fans can discuss this together :)

--Spiffy sperry 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Day baseball

Until this article comes up with a section on how the Cubs refused to play night baseball for decades, it will remain a start-class article. --Buckboard 23:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's already covered. And it wasn't "the Cubs" who declined (not "refused") to play night ball, it was their owner, P.K. Wrigley. Once the Trib Company bought the team, they immediately began lobbying for night baseball. It just took 7 years of negotiations with the Chicago pols. Wahkeenah 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad Ballpark?

Shouldn't there be some sort of disclaimer on this "bad ballpark" nonsense? Yes Wrigley is a hitters park (1.056 Park Factor according to ESPN), but so is Skydome or Great American Ballpark. Wrigley also is highly dependent on the wind. But all of this is somewhat irrelevent: during every single Cubs home game, the opposing team is playing under the same conditions. If it's so easy to bank hits off the left field wall, then just tell the bloody Cubs to HIT IT OVER THE WALL THEMSELVES. The pennant isn't decided by examining (Runs Scored - Runs Allowed) over 162 games, its decided on who wins more individual contests. And that doesn't make a lick of difference when it comes to the ballpark design: just field a team that can win in your home stadium and opposing stadiums with longer left field walls, and the World Series can return to Chicago's north side.

• Do those ballparks have a left field power alley that's 350 feet away? Wahkeenah 09:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether they do or not is irrelevant. The point is that no aspect of the stadium can make the Cubs lose unless it affects them differently than it affects their opponents. Unless there is some documented explanation like that, I'm taking this paragraph out. 136.152.180.57 22:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pre-1900

The pennants won before 1900 still count, and the World Series events of the 1880s were considered World's Championships by their participants. Arguably, 1903 was an exhibition Series also. Wahkeenah 12:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Cubs gave up home field advantage in 1984?

Someone wrote in this article that the Cubs were supposed to have home field advantage in the 1984 NLCS but that they gave it up. I know that back in those days, home field advantage in the LCS alternated between divisions. The NL West Atlanta Braves had home field over the St. Louis Cardinals in 1982. The NL East Philadelphia Phillies had home field against the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1983. I'm pretty sure that the Padres were scheduled to have home field in 1984; it should have been the west's turn. Can someone cite a source here to prove that the Cubs willingly gave up having home field advantage in 1984?Politician818 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think you're right, and I don't recall the Cubs "giving up" home field in 1984, in fact the teams don't have a choice about the post-season schedule, it's run by the Commissioner's Office. Feel free to remove that bogus info, and someone can add it (or the correct info) back when or if they cite a source. Wahkeenah 11:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• No, it was the West's turn to have HFA in the NL that year. I think you're thinking of the World Series - the Cubs would have had to open in Detroit. 71.114.210.202 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bleacher bums

Perhaps i'm dating myself, but when I lived in Chicago there was a group they called the blecaher bums. There was even a play about them. I don't know enough about it, but I feel loike that should be in the article. Or do other baseball teams also use the term "bleacher bums". --HitTheRoad 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• you ask and again i provide Wjmummert 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The provider is providing his own story. However, that violates Wikipedia:Verifiability, as he has no references to his supposed exploits. No source indicating that he was ever elected President of the Bleacher Bums or when the election was held, for instance, or to verify his supposed conversation with Mike Murphy. A total violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Find someone who can give an impartial, verifiable account.Busjack 14:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The "bleacher bums" have been around since at least 1969. A lot of good it did them then, or last night for that matter. Bleacher crowds are typically rowdy. It would be very difficult to prove that any one bleacher crowd is "more so" than another. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Retired numbers

Should someone change the retired numbers on the page like other MLB pages have been doing latley? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Upabove21 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Quick Facts Section

Is there really a point to the "Quick Facts" section? It does not really contribute to the article, since it's buried by several paragraphs by text, and contains information that is located throughout the article --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  00:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to replace {{flagicon|USA...}} calls

Notice: There is currently a proposal to change calls {{flagicon|USA..}} to {{USA|..}} at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Changing_USA_flag_calls. Please consider posting there to keep the discussion in one place. (SEWilco 04:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Discussion at MoS on flag icons

Please contribute to the discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. (SEWilco 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

New Outfits?

Judging by some footage and photos from the Cubs' training camp, the team has a new uniform. The cap has been redesigned to have a white C logo as opposed to the traditional red one, and has red half circles above the players' ears. Also, The sides of the jerseys have red and white stripes. See image here Way to screw up a perfectly good uniform --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The new uniform is the batting practice uniform. This will replace the old navy blue BP jerseys and caps. They will only be worn during games for spring training. Also... never ever call a sports jersey an "outfit" haha... —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Totals

At the bottom of their all-time season record, it gives a total of 9,866 wins and 9,398 losses for a winning percentage of .512. However, actually adding the numbers gives 9,896 wins and 9,393 losses for .513. Please advise. 71.102.156.213 19:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cubs Roster

Why would yall mess up the roster that i had updated. thats gay it took me a while to update that roster to and yall just screwed it up. If your goin to take mine off at least update the roster that you put on there. THAT'S GAY! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vikes517 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

This is why it's usually a good thing to announce major changes to an article before hand. ;) It seems someone took down your roster because embedded rosters are usually replaced with templates, that feature the actual roster. Instead of adding thousands of characters to an article, I guess most editors like using the simple {{roster}}. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Uniforms

The uniform graphic on the main page needs to be changed, as the Cubs no longer use the blue alternate jerseys.-68.78.47.144 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever updated it.--68.22.79.160 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This "Uniforms" topic had a level one header, which is contrary to Wikipedia practice and made all the subsequent topics, which are level-2 (as they should be), come up on the TOC as being subheads of it. I've changed this header to level 2. --Thnidu (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, they now use the blue alternate jersey...

They used the alternate blue jerseys before. I guess they put it on hiatus for the 2007 season --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  16:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Don't the cubs wear the alternate jerseys anymore?--MP123 05:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Cubs organization decided not to use the alternate jerseys for the 2007 season. I'm not sure whatever or not they'll still wear them in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.232.148 (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Watch out someone is going to blank this page

look above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fleela (talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

wtf?--68.252.110.88 22:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd. Must be the Twinkle script acting up as I surely didn't just post the above statement.--fleela ^±alk 22:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

They still use the blue jerseys for big z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.89.210 (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hated teams

Hi I'm from germany I'd like to know which teams are most hated by cubs-fans? thanks Pete Physic 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it depends which Cubs' fans you ask. Some will say the Chicago White Sox, the Cubs' cross town rivals. Others will say the St Louis Cardinals or Houston Astros, two of the Cubs' divisional rivals. -ShadowJester07 ► Talk 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Primarily Cardinals and White Sox. Obviously, anyone they're competing with in a given year is a rival that year. But the Cardinals and White Sox rivalry goes back several generations. Baseball Bugs 20:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you very much ;)Pete Physic 20:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My $0.02: The alleged White Sox rivalry does NOT go back several generations. Traditionally, Sox fans hate the Cubs and Cub fans do not care about the White Sox. That's hardly a rivalry in my book. Call it jealousy or call it neurosis, but it’s not a rivalry. Rivalries change over time. For example, after the turn of the 20th century the Pirates and especially the Giants were the Cubs' biggest rivals. When the Cubs were strong in the '30s, the Cardinals and the Giants would have been the biggest rivals. During the two-division era, Cubs fans’ outlook was summarized as “hate the Mets; dislike the Cardinals; don’t care about the White Sox.” Someone who thinks the White Sox are a generations-old rival of the Cubs is probably either a Sox fan or under the age of 35. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Then there was that 1906 World Series, that still sticks in the craw of some Cubs fans who know their history. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Alleged copyright violation from Chicago-Cubs-Tickets site

I wrote this [3] under my previous user ID on May 25, 2005. It was entirely my own writing. So if you've found it on another website, they got it from us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, if you read it, interspersed among their ads you will find a large chunk of the text from this article. They took it from us and did not credit it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The bastards... Blasted GNU text. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Claiming copyright violation, as that one user did, is the flip side of the usual: taking something from, say, answers.com and using it as a citation for the article here that answers.com took it from. I just thought of a new term for that kind of circular citation: "a cyclation". I'll notify Webster's at once. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosuke Fukudome

I added him to the roster saying hes from Japan, wears jersey number 1. I couldnt get the flag alligned with the otehrs (dont really know how this computer stuff works) so if someone could fix that, that'd be great. -Shawn- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.26 (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. I'm waiting to see some interesting Fukudome-themed t-shirts at Wrigley this April. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 14:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, according to his Wikipedia age, he does not have a real number yet. I'll just leave the '--' for now. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't kept up with the Hot Stove League very well, and I figured a name like that was pseudo-Japanese for "Cubs suck" and ... well, maybe the name you'd give to a tax-funded domed stadium if you built it against the will of the public. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy Article

I am not sure what other people think about this but I think that this article seems a bit long. Would it be possible to make it shorter or even maybe make certain catigories a seperate article?Cubbiesfan644 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty long. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, the "Futility theories" and "Miscellaneous" sections should be removed as they all fail WP:A, WP:Cite, WP:NPOV or re-tooled separately. However, since there is no GA/FA MLB Team article, I am not sure how one can properly organize this article. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 22:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Cursed teams

The following sentence:

"The destiny of the Northsiders and their quest for a title falls under more media scrutiny every year, especially since the other "cursed" teams, the crosstown White Sox and the Boston Red Sox, have broken their curses in the past few seasons."

omitted the Indians and the Curse of Rocky Colavito. Unlike the three mentioned it is somewhat recent (it only goes back to 1960), but I think it should still be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.16 (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

I added the tag, because it's getting obvious people don't have an interest in keeping this article fair and balanced. I've done my best to remove most of the POV, but user:Wjmummert is making it tough with his reverts, and faulty references. Linking to an HBO webpage showing that someone was interviewed for something proves nothing, nor does linking to a Chicago radio personality's biography. His user page basically states that he isn't able to maintain a neutral POV on this. Too many adjectives and adverbs sway this article as if it were written by a Cubs fan, which is wrong. Tool2Die4 (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's too general. List your top 10 examples so we have something to work with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen your work on the NIU shooting talk page, so I already know I'm dealing with someone with an agenda. I'll list some examples tomorrow morning. As for now, here's some stuff with some pretty blatant problems, and this is just one paragraph:

"Many superstitious fans attribute this collapse to an incident at Shea Stadium when a fan released a black cat onto the field, thereby further cursing the club. Others have stated the sheer number of day games that the Cubs had to play contributed to the disaster. (Lights for night games were not installed in Wrigley Field until 1988.) Chicago's summers are quite humid (85-90 degrees Fahrenheit on average), and playing in this heat day after day might have taken its toll (although the average temperature that summer was 71.8 degrees, which was relatively low [3]). From August 14 through the end of the season, the Mets had an amazing 39-11 record, finishing with 100 wins and an 8 game lead over the second place Cubs, who slumped in September, going only 8-17 and finishing 92-70."

Original research, lack of cites, and NPOV all in one paragraph. Didn't get a chance to make my way down to here yet. Tool2Die4 (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What this has to do with the NIU shooting, or what you think my agenda is about it, is anybody's guess. Every film I've seen of the 1969 pennant race, they show the clip of the black cat thrown onto the field at Shea Stadium, walking near Ron Santo. [4] The cat was a good symbol, cited after the fact. Attributing the actual collapse to the cat is ridiculous. The all day baseball is a better argument. I think that was discussed in Stuck on the Cubs, for example. However, the paragraph says "maybe yes, maybe no", which means it should go, as it provides no useful information; it's like the writer is having a dialogue with himself. A better source would be the season wrapup in a contemporary publication, such as the Sporting News Baseball Guide, for example. The respective records of the Mets and Cubs down the stretch is obviously citeable, but the "amazing" comment could be de-hyped a bit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha, now I recall the NIU shooting controversy, I think. It had to do with certain editors trying to use the article to push their anti-gun control agenda, on the purely speculative theory that arming students would somehow reduce campus violence. Again, what that all has to do with Cubs, I have no idea. Unless you're suggesting they should be lined up and shot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Further complicating matters is that now that there's a separate Cubs history page, with much duplicated information, any change made here should also be made there. That nonsense is the reason I pretty much stopped editing the Cubs pages except for reverting obvious vandalism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The date given for the cat incident is 9/9/69 (some sources say 9/8). They lost their second consecutive game to the Mets on 9/9 [5] and they had already lost most of their mid-August 9 1/2 game lead by the time the cat showed up. After that 9/9 game the Cubs were 84-58 and the Mets were 82-57. To show much of a jinx Santo thought that cat was, I'm seeing prints of the photo, with what's alleged to be Santo's autograph, on eBay. [6] The players know better than this jinx stuff. In the Baseball Guide, Durocher was quoted as saying that everyone went into a slump at the same time. Those things happen, ya know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Points duly noted. Upon further review of this article, I don't know if I'm more bothered by the slant, or the original research that needs citing. Here is a list of verbiage I found disturbing, and my argument on each:

"Extrapolating that record out to a 162 game season would yield an amazing 129 wins."

Original research, and opinion. Granted, 129 wins is nothing to scoff at, but unless a source is cited, many will bring up arguments about playing now versus then, changes in the game, etc.

The only reason to extrapolate, which I've done here and there, is to provide a sense of what a percentage means. If the 1880 team had actually played 162 games, they would not have won 129, unless their 2-man pitching rotation had bionic arms. BB

"Twice they faced the St. Louis Browns in lively and controversial action."

Who says its lively and controversial? Whomever added it to this article?

This could be quantified a bit from Glory Fades Away. BB

"Many felt the Cubs could have been in the Series for five straight seasons, had their great catcher Johnny Kling not sat out the entire 1909 season to play professional pocket billiards"

Who felt this way? Citation mark has already been added. What makes a catcher 'great'?

As noted below, the Mordecai Brown biography had some analysis on this. The analysis could be added in place of the generalization stated. BB

"By 1939, the 'double-Bills' (Wrigley and Veeck) had both passed away, and the front office, now under P.K. Wrigley found itself unable to rekindle the kind of success that P.K.'s father had created, and so the team slipped into a few years of what for a team like the Cubs was mediocrity, though in P.K.'s defense most of the best players of that time were in active military duty and many were called away from the diamond as war loomed on the horizon in Europe."

This I can at least buy, but a citation is needed. The point about the Cubs and mediocrity slants the paragraph though.

The record of the team's performance under the various leaders speaks for itself, and sufficiently. The WWII argument is bogus, since every team was affected... and in fact the Cubs won the pennant in a war year, 1945. BB

"The 1984 Cubs, made a midseason deal to acquire ace pitcher Rick Sutcliffe from Cleveland, who joined NL MVP Ryne Sandberg and Ron Cey on a squad that ultimately tallied an NL best 96 victories, handily winning the NL East. In the NLCS the Cubbies soundly won the first two games at Wrigley Field against the San Diego Padres."

What defines an 'ace' pitcher? What defines 'handily' winning something? What defines 'soundly' winning?

Sutcliffe was nearly unbeatable. His record speaks for itself and that's what should be cited, not just this fluff. "Handily"? They clinched about a week ahead. That's not unusual. BB

"After being soundly beaten in game 3, the Cubs lost a heartbreaker when dependable closer Lee Smith allowed a game-winning home run to Steve Garvey in the bottom of the 9th inning of Game 4."

What defines a 'heartbreaking' loss? Isn't that an opinion? Non Cub fans probably have a different opinion. If a Cards fan edited this, maybe it would say 'breathtakingly fantastic loss'.

Game details should be covered here. There was still Game 5 to be played. BB

"In 1998 the Cubs signed outfielder Henry Rodriguez to protect slugger Sammy Sosa, who responded with an amazing 66 home run season. This effort, coupled with a Rookie of the Year season by fireballer Kerry Wood,..."

Granted, the 66 HR season was nice. But still 'amazing' in a post-Bonds world? What defines a 'fireballer'? Is he a 'fireballer' compared to Nolan Ryan, or just a Cubs fan's opinion?

Don't recall what the Henry Rodriguez stuff is about, so some detail is needed for it to make sense. What do they mean by "protecting"? In the lineup? That's strictly POV. Keery Wood's record, including the 20-strikeout game, speaks for itself. "Fireballer" is POV. BB

"Most notably, they fleeced the Pittsburgh Pirates in a trade for superstar Aramis Ramirez,..."

Fleecing implies imbalance. Stating unbiased facts would be mentioning the trade; nothing more.

That's a humorous way to say it. He was a "rent-a-player". That fact can be stated without the effort at comedy. BB

"After being shut out in Game 5, Mark Prior and the Cubs took a 3-0 lead to the 8th inning of Game 6, when a now-infamous incident took place in which a fan, Steve Bartman, attempted to catch a foul ball off the bat of Luis Castillo, interfering with the potential catch for the second out by Moises Alou. This apparently rattled the team immensely, and two batters later, Cubs shortstop Alex Gonzalez misplayed a potential inning ending double play, loading the bases, leading to a game-tying double by Derrek Lee."

This is probably a lost cause, but undue burden is put on Bartman. No interference was called on the play, and Alou recently stated himself he would not have caught the ball. And apparently rattled the team? These are paid professionals. They can't put a play behind them? Or is this just more opinion?

I'd like to see the citation for Alou's comments. That was not how he reacted at the time. He threw his glove down in frustration. If it rattled the team, they probably wouldn't own up to it. In any case, as you say, there was no interference on this play, which slandered Bartman forever. The real screwup was Gonzo booting the double play ball. That's what killed them, not Bartman. And I doubt Gonzo would own up to being rattle, either, even if it looked that way to the fans. As you say, these guys are (proud) professionals. Also, they still had Game 7. They lost that one because the pitching faltered. BB

"Despite winning 89 games, this fallout was decidedly unlovable, as the Cubs traded superstar Sammy Sosa after he had left the season's final game early and then lied about it publicly. Sosa, already a controversial figure in the clubhouse, alienated much of his fan base (and the few teammates still on good terms with him) with this incident, possibly tarnished his place in Cubs' lore for years to come. The disappointing season saw fans become frustrated with the constant injuries to ace pitchers Mark Prior and Kerry Wood, and also led to the departure of popular commentator Steve Stone, who became increasingly critical of management toward season's end and was verbally attacked by relief pitcher Kent Mercker."

Whose opinion is it that he tarnished his place in Cubs' lore? This wouldn't be so bad if it were properly cited.

He left on a sour note and was sent packing. The same thing has happened to other steroids-era players. The part about Stone is true. You're right, it all needs supporting documentation. BB

"...the Cubs overcame the young and talented Milwaukee Brewers, who had led the division for most of the season, with an inspired stretch of baseball in June and July."

What defines an inspiring stretch of baseball? Is that quantifiable?

It would be sufficent to state their respective records during the stretch. BB

"Santo is by far the most popular, and his in game "meltdowns" when something goes wrong (Brant Brown's drop in 1998 being the most famous) and his jubilant celebrations when something goes right are quickly becoming a Cub legend."

Won't argue about Santo's place in Cub history, but what exactly makes one a Cub legend?

Being in the Cubs own Hall of Fame would be a quantifiable item. But is he more of a legend than Mr. Cub, who just had a statue dedicated? Or Ryne Sandberg? Pure POV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Also entertaining was Caray's gawking at women in the stands..."

Entertaining to whom? Probably not the women in the stands.

You'd be surprised. However, it's someone's personal observation and can't stand alone. BB

"The most popular of these "guest conductors" is former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka, who returns annually and is popular for singing terribly."

What makes him the most popular? Is there some official source that he sings terribly, or is that just opinion?

The only way to gauge "popularity" would be to list who has sung and how often. If that info is available, it could be cited. BB

"Who or what is at fault for this stretch depends heavily on whom you speak to. Many blame the Curse of the Billy Goat for this futility, citing the Bartman incident and the Leon Durham error as evidence for the curse. Many blame the club's ownership and minor league directors, and still others blame Wrigley Field itself, since the Cubs were basically a dynasty before moving there from West Side Park in 1916. There are even those who blame God himself."

God hates the Cubs? Everything is wrong with this paragraph.

The only evidence in regard to the latter is a contradictory assertion by Harry at the end of one game in 1984, that "The good Lord wants the Cubs to win!" To say God hates the Cubs is the depth of stupid POV. BB

You seem interested in having an intelligent debate, so I'm all for it. I think you've already hit the nail on the head though: "That nonsense is the reason I pretty much stopped editing the Cubs pages except for reverting obvious vandalism." It's probably also worth noting that my edit-warring partner has already been called out on this page as adding original research. I follow baseball. I know how Cubs fans are. Barring Admin input, this may be a lost cause. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of facts with layers of POV stuff. Maybe put fact tags on every assertion, and it will look stupid enough that someone might take some action. It also occurs to me that the un-encyclopedic tone of some of some of the writing suggests it was lifted directly from blogs or such stuff as that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I will give this a few days to allow other editor input, then start adding tags as needed. Tool2Die4 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've been a Cubs fan for decades, and I was looking at many of your examples saying, "Gimme a break!" I'll confess to probably having added the 1909 item. That was an evaluation expressed in the Mordecai Brown biography. Obviously, it needs a specific citation, and I think the wording got changed over time. It didn't have to do with Kling being "great" as such, but of being well-suited to handling the Cubs pitchers. Kling sat out 1909, and when he came back in 1910 they won the pennant again. But the facts and analysis are hidden by fluff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go through your examples list and add some comments point-by-point. Any objections? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what this is for, so go ahead. To be honest, I'm not sure that there's anything in my list that I object to as being factual - only the way in which the information is portrayed. Granted it's no small task to find sources for all this, but as you stated, it reeks of having come from a blog-type page. My whole point in this is either clean up the language, or have a suitable source that can verify some of these statements. I've left a request on the 3rd Opinion page to have someone check this out. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally, interpolating comments into others' comments is against the rules, unless permission is given. I'll add some notes periodically. Some of the assertions have a factual or analytical basis, some of them are nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to format or re-format as needed to enhance readability, and I will keep an eye on the diffs to make sure I catch everything you add. I trust your grasp of Wiki-editing is far superior to mine. Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually had some comments and lost them in an edit conflict. Maybe I'll do them one or two at a time. And don't put undying trust in my wikipedia skills. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Not sure it helps, just my tuppence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we are essentially on the same page. I will sit back for a while and let this debate be open to anyone else who wants to respond. Sometime next week I will start at the top either removing compromising words, adding whatever cites I can find, or adding a fact tag.

Regarding Alou's comments re:Bartman, I will try to track down an article, but it was on ESPN Tuesday or Wednesday - and was taken with a grain of salt, in large part due to his reaction at the time of the play. Nevertheless, from the horse's mouth. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

From 3O: It looks like everything is going okay here. Do you still need help or can the tag at WP:3O be removed? —BradV 17:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the course this debate has taken, I guess there isn't much of an argument. I will remove the tag at WP:3O. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To throw my two cents in, it seems the article is suffering more from peacock terms than it is from POV, and it may be easier to fix if you treat it that way. Anyway, happy editing. —BradV 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Peacock and anti-Peacock: "Amazing" vs. "Terrible". Less pomp, more cited facts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try and go through this article and make it more NPOV and fixing other problems that were stated earlier. I started with the White Stockings/Colts section, so go over it and see how it is. I will try and add {{fact}} tags where needed. Thanks. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am probably as critical a pair of eyes that will look over this article, and I thought it read pretty well after the changes Baseball Bugs and I discussed. The Cubs were a dominant team back in the early 1900's, with some dominant players, and the article needs to properly reflect that. You probably should've discussed your proposed changes here, before Rambo-ing the article. Some will definitely need to be reverted. Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to adhere to a NPOV, but may have taken too much information away. But instead of just reverting all of one edit, just put back the describing information which you feel should be properly stated, as they were dominant in the early 1900s. Sorry for not discussing before hand. I might make a subpage in my userspace to propose all edits. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

National Association club vs National League club

Has it been verified that the Cubs' history began with the National Association Chicago club in 1871? Every account of the Cubs' history that I've ever seen, including on their official website, maintains an establishment date of 1876. I beleive that this coincides with William Hulbert's establishment of the NL. While it appears that Hulbert was an executive on the NA club, I was always under the impression that he formed the new league and scrapped the NA club based on a number of factors (scheduling, gambling, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chezwick74 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if they technically/legally dissolved the 1875 team and then rebuilt it for 1876. I wouldn't put too much stock in how the Cubs date themselves on their website. They probably just want it clear that they have had a continuous run since the NL was founded. Roster comparisons indicate there was some continuity. The White Stockings brought in a bunch of ringers from the eastern NA teams, so in a sense Hulbert pulled a "Union Association" on them, winning the first league championship (another reason the Cubs might want to date to 1876). However, it actually provided some balance, as Boston had monopolized the NA, so it was not so unbalanced as with the UA, and Boston bounced right back the next year anyway.

• Pos: 1875 / 1876
• P: Jim Devlin, George Zettlein / Al Spalding (from Boston)
• C: Scott Hastings / Deacon White (from Boston)
• 1B: Jim Devlin / Cal McVey (from Boston)
• 2B: various / Ross Barnes (from Boston)
• 3B: various / Cap Anson (from Philadelphia)
• SS: Johnny Peters / Johnny Peters
• LF: John Glenn / John Glenn
• CF: Paul Hines / Paul Hines
• RF: Oscar Bielaski / Bob Addy (from Philadelphia)
• OF: various / Oscar Bielaski (sub)
• Managers: Jimmy Wood / Al Spalding
• Ballpark: Twenty-third Street Grounds

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"White flag time at Wrigley!"

Who added this section? I just added to it, and most of the info seems accurate, but it does have some POV/Weasel Words issues. It also needs citations. Anyone know where the original info came from. At least my claims are (somewhat) backed up by a picture. RMelon (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a Wrigley tradition going back to the 1930s, but that section is a combination of facts and fan-hype. I'll see what else I can find about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

More info:

• Cubs Media Guide (verbiage identical to website [7]): "One of the traditions of Wrigley Field is the flying of a flag bearing a "W" or an "L" atop the scoreboard after a game. A white flag with a "W" indicates a victory; a blue flag with an "L" denotes a loss." They left out a couple of points. One is that they have, or used to have, a pair of lights atop the scoreboard for people to see after dark. Maybe they don't do that anymore, but notice there are still little colored lights atop the board, so someone could check into that. Also, no mention of what they do with doubleheaders, but the way I remember it (when they still had scheduled doubleheaders), is that they only had one of each type of flag, so if they won both games, there would be a single "W", if they lost both, there would be a single "L", and if they split, they would fly both. Since it's uncited, I'd be inclined to zap it simply because my personal though possibly outdated knowledge of the subject does not support that uncited statement. So it needs to go in order to prevent a possible falsehood from spreading.
• According to Veeck as in Wreck, p.34, the lights were atop the flag mast on the new scoreboard in center field, with green and red, respectively, for Win and Loss. Bill Veeck told this story on himself: In 1937, during a howling windstorm, Veeck went atop the board to check out the stress and strain on the new construction. "The wind practically blew me back downtown. I grabbed the flagpole and hung on for dear life as it swayed back and forth. The El trains were moving slowly on the tracks behind, and I could just imagine one homeward-bound fan turning to the guy beside him and saying, 'Yeh, I know green means we win and red means we lose, but what means a pale-faced young guy waving back and forth?'"
• According to ballparks.com [8] the colors of the flags were reversed "in the early 90s", as it was decided that a white-background flag matched the white background flags of the retired numbers, and thus was a "good" thing.
• Info from older media guides: (1) In 1978, colored lights were added (or re-added, if Veeck's story was true) for nighttime passers-by: blue light for victory, white light for defeat (this would be consistent with the dominant color of each flag as they were then - blue with white "W", white with blue "L"); (2) The 1989 guide says blue flag with white "W", white flag with blue "L"; 1989 is also the last year the guide says anything about the 1978 lights; 1990 says white with blue "W" and blue with white "L".

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the picture that RMelon took shows a little white light on the left and a little blue light on the right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bartman play

If you're going to mention the Bartman play at all, you have to make it clear that there was no interference on the play. The briefer wording, that I just reverted past, implied that Bartman had done something wrong or against the rules, which was not the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

1000% agreed. Not even worth discussing. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I had to re-add it again when another editor again removed the line about it being on the spectator side of the wall. That fact is crucial to the ruling. Without it, it sounds weaselly, like "They could have called it but didn't". No, they couldn't have called it interference, no way, nohow. When a fan reaches over the rail, that's interference. When a player reaches over the rail, he's on his own. As a Cubs fan, was I annoyed with Bartman (and others, don't forget; he's just the one who touched it first) who were so oblivious of what was going on? Yes. But they did nothing illegal. It's just one of those things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly you have a logical side that most Cubs fans don't, especially in regards to that play. Any other baseball fan would've done the same thing, and pictures even show other people going for the ball. Bartman's just the typical Cub scapegoat. Tool2Die4 (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have backed off, but then someone else would have touched it. Instead of being out, the guy walked. Big deal. I was watching the game with friends, and when that play happened, I said out loud, "This is trouble!" Not so much because of the missed opportunity but because of Alou slamming his glove down and the over-reaction of the fans in general. Shameful and distracting. The goat in that sequence was Gonzo booting the ground ball. The "bad karma", if you want to call it that, came about because of the Cubs' reaction to it. And if they weren't professional enough to shrug it off, maybe they just didn't have what it took anyway. Bartman was treated the way the Red Sox fans treated Bill Buckner. Gonzo should thank his lucky stars every day that Bartman incurred the fans' wrath instead of himself. You don't win by looking for scapegoats. You win by getting the job done, by living up to the megabucks you're getting paid, and by taking advantage of breaks when they happen. Look what happened after. The Cubs also had the lead in Game 7, including some more hitting heroics by Kerry Woods, and couldn't hang on. The commentators had been saying all along that the Cubs' weak spot was in the bullpen, and they were leaving the starters in too long; and that's what really killed the Cubs in Games 6 and 7. The Marlins then went on to slap the Yankees around, climaxing in an astonishing lights-out complete game by Josh Beckett (whatever became of him?). The Marlins were the team of destiny that year. I had thought the Cubs were the team of destiny until that inning. The fact is, the Marlins had the right stuff and the Cubs didn't. For a comparison, look at 1969. They talk about what a collapse that was. The Mets won 100 games. The Cubs won 92, which is a lot of wins. Facing each other, the Cubs won 8 and the Mets 10. If they had split, it would have been 99 and 93 wins. So where did the rest of the margin come from? It came from the Mets playing better against teams like the Cardinals, Pirates and Expos, than the Cubs did. The fact is that the 1969 Mets were simply better than the 1969 Cubs. It just took them awhile to assert themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

“Any other baseball fan would've done the same thing, and pictures even show other people going for the ball. Bartman's just the typical Cub scapegoat.” Not really. Pictures indicate that of the six fans closest to the ball, three of them (the person two seats to Bartman’s right, the person behind Bartman and Bartman himself) were reaching for it and three of them (the person immediately to Bartman’s right and the two people to his left) were backing off to give Alou a better chance at the catch. Does Bartman deserve the treatment he’s received? Of course not. Is what he did bad home fan etiquette? Certainly. It sticks in my craw—to use BB’s phrase—that commentators like Steve Lyons immediately ranted, “Anybody would’ve done the same thing.” No, some people would have done the same thing. Of the six fans, four were acting properly: the three front-row fans who backed off and the second-row fan who, had he been able to catch the ball, could not have obstructed Alou's attempt. Bartman and the fan two seats to his right were at fault, not that they should be lynched for it. At the end of the day, it's just a game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To say that "any fan" would have done the same is obviously unprovable, as is the assertion that they were backing off due to "etiquette". It might have just been due to safety concerns. Not everyone is that keen on trying to catch a flying baseball. Bartman (and the others who were trying to grab the ball) did nothing wrong, and are not at fault for anything. The fault belongs with the Cubs, for allowing this distraction to interfere with their professional "cool". Maybe the batter would have walked anyway, and maybe Gonzo (the real "goat" of that inning) still would have muffed the double-play ball. But Alou's reaction was inexcusable, and it was his reaction that really ignited the flames. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chicago Cubs/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

35 images, 63 citations. JJ98 (Talk) 21:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 14:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2018

Despite controversy, there is no newer rivalry between the Chicago Cubs and Milwaukee Brewers. Chicago Librarian (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2019

Change the manager to none because Joe Maddon's contract expired. 73.210.137.247 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 23:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2021

Please change "Anson was released by the Cubs as both a player and manager" to "Anson was released by the Colts as both a player and manager" in the section called "Early club history: 1876–1902: A National League". Explanation: the team was not yet called the Cubs, as the article itself states. 132.64.244.79 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This is now done, --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  13:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

Change:

At the trade deadline during the 2021 season, the Cubs traded Javier Báez, Kris Bryant, and Anthony Rizzo leaving Willson Contreras as the only remaining player from the World Series team.

Jim Edmonds

The Cubs have a long history of signing has-beens in the hope they've got something left. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. My poor husband had to listen to me rant for a half hour last night about this signing. Is it wrong to hope Edmonds goes on the disabled list? --Fabrictramp (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your personal POV. I don't see why ppl are getting so uptight; I think Edmonds could bring some fresh spark to the lineup. --Cubs Fan (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll see if this turns out to be more significant than the signing of Fred McGriff, for example. Usually, when they pick up one of these guys, it means they're doomed for the year. This kind of thing started with Dizzy Dean, who actually helped them down the stretch in 1938, at the end of the William Wrigley / William Veeck legacy era, but too many times these guys prove to be a detriment. We'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Edmonds could bring some fresh spark to the line up. So could anyone from AA. He hasn't hit over the league average since 2004, his fielding percentage hasn't been over the league average since 2005.[9] Reed Johnson, who Edmonds is kicking out of CF, has a higher BA, OBP, and SLG this year. So tell me, how is this a good move?--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What it actually reminds me of, for those old enough to remember, is the Johnny Callison deal of 1970. He was supposed to be some sort of improvement over Don Young. He wasn't. He was a formerly excellent player who was fairly much washed up. This is a bad sign for the Cubs, but we'll see. Maybe he'll turn out to be more like Ron Cey, who was also over the hill when the Cubs got him in 1983, but he was important in their divisional run in 1984. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to call his newfound er I mean all-time fanbase, "Ed-Heads", a spoof of Deadheads. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember the "Shawon-O-Meter", where someone kept track of Shawon Dunston's meager batting average? Someone needs to make an "Ed-O-Meter" to trace Edmonds average as it attempts to stay above the Mendoza Line. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Edmonds's line with the Cubs this year: .280/.377/.566. A mid-season acquisition's worth is dictated by how he performs with his new team, in this case well above the Mendoza line and very respectable numbers. His numbers before playing with the Cubs this year are inconsequential when determining his value to the Cubs. EchoBravo (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm thrilled to have been proven wrong about the signing. Still, before a player actually plays with his new team, all you have to go by is previous numbers. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I know, and I did not like the signing myself at the time. I've since had to eat a lot of crow . EchoBravo (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

99 vs. 100

For the arithmetically challenged in the audience, the Cubs' World Series drought is 99 years, not 100. 2008 is the 100th anniversary of their last Series win. But the actual anniversary is not until the start of the 2008 World Series. So the actual drought is 99. If and when the Cubs are eliminated from post-season play in 2008, then their drought will stand at 100. To put it another way, they have played 99 full seasons since 1908, that is 1909 through 2007. The drought is 99. It is not 100. Yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Yet". :p --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  15:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently they have the best record in baseball. That means little in June. But it's better to be where they are than where, say, the Seattle Mariners are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For further online calculations, based on when the Cubs ended won the WS, 10/14, see [10]. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  06:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We're talking seasons, not days. The Series comes at a later date now than it did in 1908, but what matters is whether they win it or not. If they win it, the drought was 99 years (or actually "seasons") no matter the date. If they lose it, or don't get in it, the drought becomes 100, regardless of what date they're ousted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I get really annoyed with Sox fans because they are so dumb(no offense but I couldn't think of a better word) and they say it's has been 101 years. Like what the heck?Cedargang (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It will now unfortunatley be 100 years but technically it won't be 100 years until Oct. 14. Because of the strike in 1994(I think), it has only been 99 seasons. So Cubs fans have a couple loopholes for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.170.225 (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's 100 seasons without a Series winner, so the drought is 100. The specific date is not important. The figure is now 100. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question and Answer

I'm not a contributor, but as a Die-Hard Cubs Fan, I like everything and commend Wikipedia for allowing both information and entertainment content. After all, the subject is baseball, a favorite American past time that includes International interest and participation. This article is very thorough and provides understanding for readers around the world curious about the Chicago Cubs phenomena. In fact, I would ask for another sentence, reference or link regarding alleged managerial mistakes in the 1989 playoff. And, regards the 1984 playoffs, the Cubs did not have lights as yet to play night baseball. I believe this slightly altered the scheduling of the series, but I don't remember how. Exarctly (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a false rumor. The lack of lights in 1984 did not alter the post-season schedule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It didnt alter the schedule. It would possibly have in the World Series, though. As far as the managerial blunders by Zim, remember that this page only includes a summary of the on-field history. For a more in depth version (which already mentions that) see History of the Chicago Cubs.Wjmummert (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 - Back to Back?

Is it just me, or is that section extemely POV-ish?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It could use some minor tweaks and references, but it's nothing worth totally extracting. I'll get on it sooner or later. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  05:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

you know, just 2008 might be a better title. its hard to pick a title when it's still so early. i could call it the collapse of 2008, but i prefer optomism.Wjmummert (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if they collapsed, I was going to blame you for jinxing them :p --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Beware of too much "crystal ball" stuff. Wikipedia frowns on speculation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Was the 'loveable losers' bit ever resolved? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

LOVEABLE LOSERS has not been resolved. It belongs in the article.... just not in the intro. I already mentioned and sourced it later inthe article.... see the "Fall of 69" section. they can discuss that on the Chicago Cubs futility theories page that I created last year.... Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 00:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

MEMORABLE EVENTS AND RECORDS

How about the Kerry Wood 20 strikeout game? Should this go here too?Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 22:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What about when Ron burned his hairpiece. It is possibly the most memorable event off the field. On the field, I think it would be Zambrano's no hitter. It would tie Woody's 20KsCedargang (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

May 17 = the 30th anniversary of the 23-22 game vs Phillies. Highest scoring game ever. 3 hrs by kong. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the highest scoring was another Phillies game at Wrigley, on August 25, 1922, which the Cubs won 26-23. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for getting that wrong. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are retrosheet box scores for three high-scoring Cubs-Phillies games at Wrigley. Schmidt was a killer in the two from the 70s. The 1976 game featured 4 HR's by Schmidt, and tied the record for largest comeback. Had the Phils come back and won in 1922, which they came close to doing, that would have been the record:

• Aug 25, 1922
• Apr 17, 1976
• May 17, 1979
  Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Team nicknames

Made a couple of minor changes to date when the Cubs' previous nicknames changed. This was done clear up any and all confusion as to when they were the Colts and when they were the Orphans, as it came up in a peer review of different article. I referenced all three with baseball-reference.com, a trusted site, but all other trusted sites concur with the dates as well.Neonblak (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Cubs" nickname was by no means "official" in 1903, it was simply in use by then. As noted in History of baseball team nicknames, "Colts" was used frequently through 1905. "Cubs" really took hold in 1906 and the team acknowledged it in print for the firs time in 1907, so 1907 is the better answer of when it became "official". The problem with sites like baseball-reference is that they parrot stuff from other sources without bothering to research the facts. They also don't always get it right, no matter how "trusted" they are. Someone found a mistake there the other day as regards Davey Johnson's home run record - they had lost a home run in 1973, whereas another site had it right. There were other issues about Johnson's info also. [11] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrigley Field North

I believe it would be appropriate to mention the development of Miller Park as "Wrigley North." There have been numerous articles (in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times) all of which have referred to Miller Park as "Wrigley North" I'm willing to put something together if it will be posted Bforner (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)bforner

That's covered in the Miller Park article, but if you can provide additional references, that would be good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Of greater historical interest would be to show how the Milwaukee Braves of the 1950s benefited from their proximity to Chicago, as many Chicagoans went north to watch a good National League team. In 1959, it was nearly a Sox-Braves World Series, which would have been something - but the Dodgers won the playoff with the Braves, and then beat the Sox in the Series. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hack-wilson.jpg

The image Image:Hack-wilson.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:WGN720.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Caray's Restaurant

As a Houston Astros fan I wouldn't deign to edit this page, but under the Wrigley Field paragraph I read:

"The area surrounding the ballpark is typically referred to as Wrigleyville. There is a dense collection of bars and nightclubs in the area, most with baseball inspired themes, including Harry Caray's, Murphy's Bleachers, and Sluggers"

I ate at Harry Caray's several years ago, and recall it being just north of the River -- some distance from Wrigleyville. Or perhaps there's also an establishment by that name close to the park?

Irv (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, High Tops was bought by the group and is now Harry Caray's Tavern206.81.51.187 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect

As I did yesterday, I am going to semi-protect this page until the end of the season. We had a lot of bad editing last year right after the clincher. We should clinch in the next couple of days. This will only be a temporary protection. If anyone has a problem with this, note that here or leave me a message on my talk page.Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 16:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Only admins can protect a page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rivalry with the Cardinals

Am I the only person who finds it a bit odd that the St. Louis Cardinals are mentioned all of 4 times on this page, none of which even acknowledge the fact that the Cubbies have a rivalry dating back to 1885 (or so) with them? Just seems odd, since you can't be a Cubs or Cards fan without having a near religious hatred of the other team (and/or its fans).... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.124.148 (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Flags hanging over Wrigley Field

It is stated that the retired numbers hang on flags on the foul poles, but Jackie Robinson's number 42 does not. I don't know why this says this, but I'm removing Robinson's number. I think the Cubs only post numbers of their players. Write here if you think I'm wrong.--poketape 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketape (talk • contribs)

The article should clarify that 42 does not fly at Wrigley, but it's still a retired number. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Important Figures

I mean c'mon, are Geovany Soto and Jim Edmonds really "important figures" of the Chicago Cubs franchise? This team has been around for 130 years. I'm not too sure if a guy who's been there for only a year should be listed as an "important figure." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamedog18 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Rivalry Section?

I think that the page should have a section added for rivalries, Most sports team pages do and as some one said earlier it'd be a good place to put information about rivalries with the Cardinals and Sox, such as brief notes such as the historical rivalry with St. Louis and the 1906 World Series and the tied 33-33 Sox-Cubs record. Its just seems like an important thing to have in the article rivalries are a big part of sports. 131.230.146.135 (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Oct 22, 2008

Retired Numbers

I think that 31 should be removed from the retired numbers section although it may have been reserved it is not an official retired number. Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

1870

The template correctly says founded 1870. One category should be revised to "Sports clubs established in 1870". P64 (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)