Talk:New York Yankees/Archive 2

Semi Protection Template

The YAnkees article is semi protected but dos not have any of the Sp templates. Can someone explain? Or, should I add the template? Chamillitaryboi94 19:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The easiest explanation is the person who started the protection didn't add the tag, so I just did. Not a big problem, just a small oversight. Michael Greiner 19:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I archived all discussions before December 1, 2006 because the talk page was over 117 kilobytes long and had a disproportionate amount of old topics. Michael Greiner 00:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yanks?

Are they really referred to as the Yanks? I've never heard this, usually when people say 'yanks' they are referring to Americans in general and not the Yankees. --Borgarde 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's true. Generally most of the Commonweath nations refer to Americans as Yanks, as do some people from the southern United States, but Yanks is also a shortform nickname for the Yankees. Yankees76 04:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just something I hadn't heard mentioned before. Yankees are probably one of the most mentioned teams over here in Australia. As long as it's fact I've got no objection ;) --Borgarde 04:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example in the news.[1].Yankees76 04:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, "Yanks" usually refers to the New York Yankees. Americans who live in the south sometimes use the term "yankees" as an ethnic slur referring to other Americans from the north, but they do not generally abbreviate it to "yanks." Outside the US, "yanks" is commonly used as a diminution of the word "yankees," which generally refers to Americans and not members of the New York baseball team. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.203.245 (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Logos

User:TheSportsLogosMaster "dumped" the logos on the right into the Uniform and dress code section of the page. I removed 1 thru 6 and 10 thru 12 but was reverted by User:TheUSCTrojan so I brought discussion here. In my opinion, none of the logos are needed on the page. Most logos are superfluous or already covered in other parts of the article. Ownership of the images is also in doubt based on the comment left by User:TheSportsLogosMaster on User talk:Mecu stating:

Mecu, since it is in the policy, yes you may make my images smaller to comply, however, images that I or Soxrock upload may not be compressed to where the height or the width, whichever was already 500, is made smaller than 400 pixels. That is our requirement, and it would be appreciated if you and others when compressing could keep them large enough. Thanks TheSportsLogosMaster 16:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

which implies ownership by the user which goes against the image tags which is against wiki policy. I say remove all of the logos. Michael Greiner 03:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - for the reasons above and because they've ruined the formatting and aesthetics of the page, are not a complete set and aren't really encyclopedic. Yankees76 05:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Remove -- I have no real opinion on the ownership issue, but I concur that it negatively affects the layout and has an unproductive element of overkill. Lordjeff06 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Remove - Perhaps the logos could be placed on a new, separate page, but they do not belong on the main Yankees page because of the negative impact on aesthetics. Brad E. Williams 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the formatting on the Uniform and Dress Code section because it was pretty heinous. I like the home and road uniforms being shown there. I really wish I had more time to work on this article because it needs a hell of a lot of work. Sportskido8 01:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, has anyone seen the Los Angeles Dodgers page? I like the idea of including all the Yankee logos, so what if we put them in a small photo gallery like they did, which takes up little space and doesn't look half bad. I can rig it up soon as I get the pictures, possibly put it in here to show you guys how it would look. Under the uniform heading, we can put that, and then the two uniform pictures to the right of the text about uniforms as it is now, or even put it in it's own logos heading above the uniform heading? Silent Wind of Doom 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Apparently the Dodgers page has changed and the gallery doesn't look at good anymore. I'll try to make it look best I can, though.

PS. Speaking of bad aesthetics and formatting, look at the new championships templates they put at the bottom of this page. Yeah, it's nice for some teams, but it majorly screws up the Yankees page. There has to be a better way. Silent Wind of Doom 05:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How's this?

• 
  1901 Baltimore Orioles logo
• Original New York Highlanders logo
  Original New York Highlanders logo
• 
  Original logo of the New York Yankees, and current cap logo
• 
  Current logo
• 
  Logo on breast of home jersey
• 
  Name on breast of away jersey
• 
  Current print logo
• 
  Current print name

Silent Wind of Doom 05:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's been no response in about a week, so I'm just going to put it in the page. Silent Wind of Doom 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late, but here are my 2 cents. The logos you have are mis-identified, which is the same problem we kept having on the Dodgers page. The "original logo of the Yankees" is not, and the "current logo" only dates from the 1950s. I don't like the gallery, for those reasons. --Chancemichaels 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Years as numerals vs. written out at the beginning of sentences

According to AP Style, years are always to be written as numerals. I didn't revert the edit so that "1961" was written as such, because I don't want to get into an edit war. My opinion is that it should be written as numerals, according to AP Style. Brad E. Williams 14:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Journalists use shortcuts to fulfill their words-per-article quota. But most style guides -- and almost every English and writing teacher -- will tell you to never begin a sentence with a numeral. Numbers (including those referring to years) should be written out when leading off a sentence, and single-digits should be in word form at all times within the text (except when inside of parenthesis). Rollosmokes 15:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why the edit to change the wording isn't valid in your eyes. It takes care of the problem of writing style and awkwardness. It looks amazingly awkward and stupid when you write out the year 1961 at all, let alone in an article where a plethora of years are given, all in numerical form. How can you get rid of this awkwardness? You could leave it as a numeral, but you don't want to do that because of it being against writing style guides. Fine then. So we can just get rid of it by taking 1961 out of the position of first word. I did this, and yet you still refuse to let the change stand, claiming that it has been unchanged, so why change it now? What difference does that make? I had made a small typo that took a few weeks to get caught. Just because something has been there, doesn't make it right. It's a small change that's not hurting anyone, and aids the article. What's the harm? Why not just let the change take place and end the whole numerical or spelled out arguement? Silent Wind of Doom 07:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing awkward and stupid about something that is correct from a literary standpoint. Go open up any book -- even a baseball book, and you will see years written as numbers when leading off a sentence. No writing teacher I've had has told me to start a sentence with, "The year xxxx". That is poor writing etiquette, and I feel very strongly about it. And, when I originally made this change, it was left alone for weeks. So, as you said, what's the harm? I'm all about making contributions that are both accurate and properly written. This is correct style, so it should stay. Rollosmokes 07:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it correct writing style? Yes. Does it look right? In a world where rarely if ever spell out years, no. Quite frankly it doesn't look right. Can we say "I don't know who's in there, but this is their car,"? No, we can't. It's not correct writing style. The correct writing style would be "I don't know who's in there, but this is his or her car." Would we ever say that? No. Even most writers don't do that. It sounds awkward. Most writers agree that it sounds awkward. Just because it is right doesn't mean it looks right. Now we can fix this. All we have to do it make it so "1961" isn't the first word. That's it. Fine, we'll leave "The year 1961" out of it if you think that doesn't sound right. How about my latest change, which gets rid of the problem all together. There. It's not the first word, so there is no more issue. Why do you continue to push this when the issue is moot? Silent Wind of Doom 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wild Card

I am having serious trouble with the Wild Card box. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Crazy Canadian 02:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing too bad was wrong. The main thing you forgot to do was to place an end tag on the boxes which messed up the rest of the page. (Something I have done many times) I'm not sure of this, but I think wild card "winner" is better than "champion". I think the boxes are fine now. Michael Greiner 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination?

Someone nominated this for GA-status but I don't think it's ready. You really need to polish it before doing that...I will give my best efforts in the upcoming month. Sportskido8 07:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the nomination means that we should all dedicate our best efforts to improving the article. I agree that it's not ready, but here we are. I think that one place where we can make some hay is to pare down the 21st Century section and migrate the minutiae to the main "history" article. Brad E. Williams 03:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article failure

The nomination for New York Yankees/Archive 2 did not succeed. After I reviewed it i have found that it unfortunately fails, there are a few things I would like to point out in which if improved, could meant the promotion of thid article in the future.

1. The references at the bottom are not formatted ocrrectly, the are URL's all over the place with the actual address on and not summed up in the form of leading to a website but with a summary explaining it.
2. Secondly the refs do not have the appropriate tags on the end, this meaning that they should say on the end Retrieved on 3 March 2007 or accessed 3 March 2007.
3. I noticed there are many areas in this article that could be interwiki linked where relevant, especially in the sub-sections about different decades of changes.

Except for that the article is excellent, I'm sure with a bit of hard work it could be brought up to GA status, good luck in the future.Tellyaddict 19:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

All-Star Game

Haven't the Yankees been awarded the 2008 All-Star Game, as a farewell to the original Yankee Stadium, and not the 2009 game (as currently written in the article)?--Adar27 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, 2008. Article has been updated.Simon12 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Freddy Schuman

The paragraph on Freddy Schuman states "Whether or not Freddy is employed by the Yankees' organization is not definitely known, although it assumed that such must be the case in order for him to afford to attend so many games throughout the season", while his article says "Freddy Sez is currently receiving some sort of sponsorship from Modell's Sporting Goods, and he wears a hat embroidered with the Modell's logo", both uncited. Anyone have any solid references on either of these? --Zarek 21:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)