Talk:History of the San Francisco Giants

Baseball Mid‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Image copyright problem with Image:Giants black NY.gif[edit]

The image Image:Giants black NY.gif 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:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for split into New York Giants (National League)[edit]

That's right, I said it. Per yet another discussion at WT:MLB (perma link), people are frustrated with the inconsistency of the Washington Nationals and Montreal Expos being in different articles while other multi-city teams are lumped together. Well, I will start here in proposing to split the multi-city histories of the San Francisco Giants and thereby create New York Giants (National League). In my opinion, all of the following 10 prior incarnations of current teams should be split into separate articles:

Brooklyn Dodgers
Washington Senators (1st American League team)
Washington Senators (2nd American League team)
Boston Braves
Milwaukee Braves
New York Giants (National League)
Philadelphia Athletics
Kansas City Athletics
St. Louis Browns
Montreal Expos

...and maybe others (Seattle Pilots have been mentioned). I start here because the coverage of the New York Giants in this article is embarrassing. The New York Giants make up nearly 60% of the franchise's history (by years), won all five of the franchise's World Series and 17 of its 20 pennants, and featured the winningest manager in N.L. history. And yet it is relegated to what - about 30% of this article? 28 entire years - probably more than many of you have been alive - are smashed into a single two-paragraph section (History of the San Francisco Giants#1930–57: Five pennants in 28 seasons) - 8 whole lines on my monitor (3.5 years per line!). Another 10 pennants are condensed literally into a single paragraph - three sentences (with sloppy parentheticals mixed in). In a new article, I bet baseball historians would jump at the opportunity, and could probably create a featured article with little trouble. Splitting sports articles along geographical/chronological lines is a natural inclination and would encourage locals to expand small articles (like New York Giants (National League) would be). There are probably plenty of Kansas City Athletics enthusiasts who are nervous expanding the KC portion of the Oakland Athletics article because of the size of that article already. (And let's be honest - they don't have much to write about regarding the KC Royals). Another advantage would be proper categorization. There is already a Category:New York Giants (baseball) but no main article to go in it. A new article about the New York Giants would become stable and not be subjected to the recentism that creeps into articles about all current teams. A stable article is more likely to reach FA status. Any subject that can support a FA should at the very least be in its own article. Wknight94 ^talk 19:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is already a New York Giants (Baseball) which shouldn't have "Baseball" upper cased. Its originator had a similar idea in Talk:San Francisco Giants. "Baseball" is insufficient, though, because the Players' League club was also called the "Giants". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 19:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you don't see a need to split out the short-lived predecessors of other current clubs, including N.Y. Yankees / Baltimore Orioles; St. Louis Browns / Milwaukee Brewers; Milwaukee Brewers / Seattle Pilots. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like overkill, but if someone has six books about the 1901 Milwaukee Brewers, I wouldn't be opposed to a separate article about that either. Wknight94 ^talk 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It is just silly to solve this stupid impasse by making 29 other franchises conform to one franchise where a group of die hard contributors refuse to recognize the reality of their favorite franchise's history. If and when this article gets too big to hold all the information, it will be quite proper to spilt the history into daughter articles linked to one main article, and I have no doubt that one such break will come at the point the franchise moved, but they are ONE organzation. The ownership over the period of the move was the same, the personnel over the period of the move was the same, the team records are shared, the entire history is shared. There needs to be one overarching article about the franchise, which is exactly the same whether it is in New York or San Francisco. If Proctor and Gamble were to leave Cincinnati tomorrow and set up a corporate headquarters in San Francisco, we would not have articles called Proctor and Gamble (Cincinnati) and Proctor and Gamble (San Francsico). Baseball clubs are corporations and should not be treated any differently. In situations where a team is a spiritual successor, ie MLB actually revoked a franchise, dissolved the club, and then gave a franchise to a brand new ownership team that inherited the players and history of the disbanded team, I could see the argument, but this is not the case here. Indrian (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That takes us back to the other idea, which is to have one relatively short umbrella article, and two spinoff articles on the histories of the clubs in their cities. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 19:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an idea I am not opposed to in principle, but do not believe is the right move now. First, this article needs a massive cleanup that removes the excessive detail on recent events and fills in info on earlier years. Only when this article is actually somewhat sound should we decide whether there is so much information that we need two or more daughter articles to contain it. I began tackling this issue last night before this discussion began, and I hope to continue over the next couple of weeks. I would prefer to see how the article ends up within that time before deciding if daughter articles are necessary. We should not create daughter articles just because there are two different franchises if we are left with underdeveloped material in one or both articles. Indrian (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just a point of fact, it's not 29 others, it's 9 others. Those (and the Expos) are the only 9 that have breaks in their history along geographic lines with significant amounts of time on either side. That the Expos "die hard" contributors are die hard is mostly because they are Canadian. They don't care a whit about Washington D.C. and frankly the Washingtonians couldn't care less about Montreal. The entire culture of the "organization" changed with the move just as it did with the move from Brooklyn. Brooklyn Dodgers experts probably come to Wikipedia and are appalled that their beloved Brooklyns are forced to share a tiny space with a team that abandoned them (and were never replaced - people where Brooklyn hats there to this day). An entire movie, Brooklyn Dodgers: Ghosts of Flatbush was devoted just to the Brooklyn Dodgers. Do you think San Franciscans take great pride in the fact that their Giants won the World Series ---- in New York?! I doubt it. I wouldn't. Forcing them to be treated the same is frankly an insult to many. Wknight94 ^talk 19:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're opposed to and not. You like an umbrella article and two history articles? That's what I'm proposing! This is one of the history articles and New York Giants (National League) would be the other. Wknight94 ^talk 19:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close, I want an umbrella history article and daughter history articles where necessary to deal with an overabundance of information. A summary of the entire franchise's history should still be on one page because it is one entity with continuity of ownership, records, etc. Indrian (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, so you want four articles just for the SF Giants. That's actually going further than what I propose. Wknight94 ^talk 19:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they were necessary, yes, but since this article is horribly written and contains loads of barely relevant information on the last decade of Giants history, I think it could safely be rewritten so that four such articles would be unnecessary. Indrian (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a 100% POV argument rather than one based on fact. Wikipedia should be about historical accuracy and not fan predilections and prejudices. When there is too much information on the history of a franchise whether it be the Giants and Dodgers that have long histories in two locations or the Cubs and Red Sox with long histories in one city, then subarticles linked to one main history article should be created with splits in appropriate places, which will most likely include the point the franchise moved. Until a split is needed for reasons of summary style, however, such a move only exhibits POV bias. Indrian (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well those arguments are on top of the factual ones I made above. In addition, in many cases, moves did correspond to ownership changes. According to their own articles, the Senators move to Minnesota, the Braves move to Atlanta, the Browns move to Baltimore, both of the A's moves (to Kansas City and Oakland), and of course the Expos move to Washington, all involved a change of ownership. Moves of entire franchises from one city to another is a major break. Right now, the conditions of many of the history articles (not just this one) are so confusing and broken, they dissuade new users from even attempting to fix or expand them. Wknight94 ^talk 20:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First, you are taking one piece of criteria among several and singling it out to disprove my point, which is a bit of a fallacy. Moves and ownership changes often do go hand and hand, but there is still continuity of personnel, contracts, records, and other factors that point to the corporation continuiung to exist before, during, and after the move as opposed to one business being dissolved and a new one taking its place. Second, I agree with you that the baseball history articles are a mess and need to be fixed, and I agree that creating daughter articles is the way to go. However, this is something that should be done in a uniform fashion amongst ALL articles about the history of baseball teams that have a significant amount of history to cover. THIS article should not be split; it should stay right where it is with cleanup. No New York Giants (National League) page should be created, because this is the same organization as the San Francisco Giants. What should be created are daughter history articles that are divided along the lines of significant time periods. Take a look at History of South Africa to see what I mean. This kind of move would get my 100% approval. Creating two articles (San Francisco Giants and New York Giants (National League)) to describe one entity that underwhent a name change and geographical location change is not a move I can agree with. Indrian (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But History of South Africa has an example of my point. Look at a few of the eras of South Africa like Union of South Africa and South African Republic and Orange Free State. From the looks of it, none of those were split out of the history article or South Africa. They were created separately because they involved some sort of natural progression of South Africa including a name change. (I'm not an expert on South Africa so forgive me if the example is off-base - I'm sure other examples of my point could be readily found). Also, I would love to propose a split of all of the relevant baseball articles simultaneously... but baby steps for now. Wknight94 ^talk 20:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on South Africa either, though I know more than the average layman, so I am hesitant to go down this road too far, but those separate entities you mention are completely different organizations that governed parts of, if not all, of South Africa at various times under a variety of charters and constitutions and power structures, so I consider that completely different from the relatively simple matter of a single corporation that changed cities. Like I said, before, happy to have daughter articles created and will support that 100%, even happy to help with the split, I am just against an article called New York Giants (National League) which would essentially be a new parent article that by its very existence implies that the two Giants clubs are different organizations. I think this is mostly a matter of semantics between us as opposed to being on opposite sides of an effort at reform. Indrian (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul are also a good example. One city, three distinct epochs in its history, three names, three articles. Reso lute 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that this is a good example, but I find this split of Istanbul into three separate articles bizarre, so while it does prove your point that there is precedent for this sort of thing on wikipedia, I do not agree with that division any more than the one proposed here. Indrian (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'New York Giants (baseball)' would be a better title. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ GoodDay, there was also a New York Giants (PL) team. @Indrian, your Proctor and Gamble example doesn't do it for me either. Proctor and Gamble doesn't represent a city (I didn't even know where their HQ was) and they are an (inter?)national company. Them moving doesn't mean much to anyone (except anyone that may have lost a job because of the move). OTOH, sports teams have the name of the city right in the team name. Wknight94 ^talk 19:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the PL team isn't a predecessor of the MLB Giants. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it does make (baseball) a bad disambiguation, since it could refer to more than one team. Reso lute 20:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument on keeping these articles merged is also 100% POV, which is why this has been so contentious throughout Wikipedia's history. Both sides worry about historical accuracy. Where we differ is in what we feel is the best way to present the history. Reso lute 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, to imply that the New York and San Francisco Giants are two different organzations by completely separating them into two articles is 100% POV and inaccurate. They are one corporation with a continuous chain of ownership and are even recognized by MLB as one continuous organzation since the team records are shared. Daughter articles will certainly be necessary as a means of organizing information, but any solution that implies two separate business entities creates a fallacy for the sake of a few fans that like to pretend that these businesses only exist for their own amusment. Indrian (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an emotional argument, not a logical one. As noted below, consider the Calgary Flames and New Jersey Devils articles. Both make it very clear in the lead, the infobox and with a full section dedicated to previous teams that there is continuity of history between the differing incarnations of each franchise. The only difference is that each incarnation is given focus on its article. Atlanta Flames and Calgary Flames, as well as Kansas City Scouts, Colorado Rockies (NHL) and New Jersey Devils each form integrated article sets that allow the reader to learn about the full history of the franchise, or to focus on only the specific incarnation they are interested in. IMNSHO, a split by relocation allows the greatest benefit to the reader. Reso lute 20:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Indrian, as I said above (sorry, it's getting difficult to follow the bouncing ball), in many cases, moves did correspond to ownership changes. According to their own articles, the Senators move to Minnesota, the Braves move to Atlanta, the Browns move to Baltimore, both of the A's moves (to Kansas City and Oakland), and of course the Expos move to Washington, all involved a change of ownership. Wknight94 ^talk 20:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the splitting of those team articles. More articles for more info. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support split. Separate articles on the New York Giants and other earlier incarnations of baseball teams are long overdue. Splitting them would be fully consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:SUMMARY, WP:SIZE, WP:SPLIT) and would be a service to readers. As a reader of Wikipedia (before I decided to become an editor), I could never understand why clicking on a link to New York Giants would redirect to San Francisco Giants; the reason I clicked on the link is because I wanted to read about the New York history. Yes, there's some information on the New York Giants buried in the San Francisco article, and even more if I clicked on another link to get to this article, but it just makes things too difficult for the reader. It's also difficult for any editor who may be interested in watching the page for changes relevant to the history of the New York Giants, because the San Francisco Giants sections get most of edits. Splitting this article and the others mentioned by Wknight94 would be a strong step forward for Wikipedia's coverage of baseball. BRMo (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wknight's arguments. Such a split would allow a greater focus on key aspects of the Giants' history, allowing a person searching for information on the New York Giants to easily and quickly find what they are looking for, rather than having to parse through a ton of data related to the team in San Francisco. Reso lute 20:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Are you proposing to remove all the references to the NY Giants from the San Francisco Giants article? Are we to pretend that the SF Giants didn't exist before the late 50s? As a Dodgers fan, I don't pretend they didn't exist before the move to LA... the Dodgers still recognize Jackie Robinson as an important part of their history.... if you do this split then no mention of him remains on the LA Dodgers page? This is an insane proposal. Spanneraol (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect Wknight would treat it similar to how the Calgary Flames article is done. There is a full section on the Atlanta Flames history, but leaves the in-depth analysis of the team in Atlanta to the Atlanta article. Reso lute 20:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you treat them only as history articles thats one thing but those hockey articles have whole separate nav boxes for each version of the franchise.. and the Flames box doesn't contain links to the seasons that the team was in Atlanta.. making it more difficult for the reader to jump to whatever season in the teams history they want. Spanneraol (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Resolute said is correct. As far as how nav boxes and infoboxes are handled, I don't have much opinion. We can discuss that too if you'd like. But as far as removing all NYG references from the SFG article or vice versa, of course that would be silly. What I'm mainly looking for is an article that is chiefly devoted to the New York Giants. Of course it would begin and end with numerous links to the San Francisco Giants article(s). I'm not trying to obscure facts, just give the different incarnations their just due. Mel Ott was one of the greatest power hitters in N.L. history but he is mentioned literally twice in this article. Further, right now, many of the pages for older incarnations are nasty section redirects or redirects to the top of some page that barely mentions the old city, etc. Like I said, it's embarrassing. Wknight94 ^talk 20:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Calgary Flames}} links to Atlanta Flames, and {{Calgary Flames seasons}} includes a link to List of Atlanta Flames seasons, so there are links between the two in the navboxes. I'm not suggesting that these articles and navboxes be treated exactly the same as we treat such franchises at WP:HOCKEY, I am merely using this as an example of the type of format the articles themselves could take on. Personally I absolutely hate many of the baseball project's navboxes, but the beauty of the system is that they are not rigidly defined. The Giants' navboxes can be appropriately written to best suit whatever consensus emerges. Reso lute 20:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is by far the best way to go to get the most information out to the readers. It will also be much easier to navigate the history of the franchise and find exactly what you are looking for straight from the search. Like many have said above, you can clearly indicate with a paragraph about the future and past etc and links to the different eras. This way will conform to WP:Summary style and WP:COMMONNAME and various other standards that many articles have. -DJSasso (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I do support the concerns of Reso. If (for example), I were listing out all-time franchise records in the SF Giants article, I would hope there would not be some odd attempts to only list records set in SF. The comments above allay my concerns enough to support this move. I am surprised at times that this doesn't happen more often as these sports franchise articles get longer and longer ... I suspect that even teams like the Chicago White Sox and Cincinnati Reds, teams who never moved, will one day need to split the article. It seems that this is as good a place as any to start. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Records for just the San Francisco era might be interesting - same for the New York era - but definitely the combined records need to be shown somewhere, and probably need to take precedence. Wknight94 ^talk 01:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree ... it wouldn't be bad to list "NY Giants all time records", and "SF (only) Giants all time records", but if such or similar listings exist, an unambiguous one for the entire franchise's history would need to be listed. Even if you are listing (for example) managers, it wouldn't be bad to list the NY Giants managers on the "NY Giants" page, with a link to the same list on the SF Giants page; in this case there may not be a need for one master list. However, if you were listing "MVP Awards", then perhaps there needs to be a single master list. It is a trifle messy, but I am confident it can be worked out. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off the cuff, a records article that lists, say the top five players in franchise history, as well as the top (one, three) player(s) in each of New York and San Francisco? I have no idea if the example is relevant to how MLB has categorized records, but the Calgary Flames media guide has both a franchise scoring leaders list, and a scoring leaders list exclusive to Atlanta. Reso lute 04:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, are we talking about a separate article like San Francisco Giants team records? Seems like that's already an issue - somewhat separate from whether a New York Giants (National League) article is created. Apparently we're entirely missing San Francisco-specific and New York-specific Giants statistical records. That should be rectified IMHO, whether we split this article or not. Wknight94 ^talk 13:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is absurd for the reasons that I (and others) have given time and again. It's the same team, the articles are not "too long" (whatever that's even supposed to mean), etc. If you feel that the teams time in NY is under-represented, by all means add to it! There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to split the article. faithless (^speak) 00:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is, and it also answers you question as to what too long is. WP:SPLIT. And the way you do it is via WP:Summary style -DJSasso (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@faithless: By your logic alone, Prussia, Constantinople, Nupedia, Beverwyck, SouthTrust, Oklahoma Territory, Mongolian People's Republic, List of colonial governors of Virginia, etc., etc., should all be combined into other articles. There is no doubt that enough content could be found for a separate New York Giants article just as enough exists for the articles above. To claim that the entire New York part of the Giants history does not warrant its own coverage is what is absurd. Wknight94 ^talk 03:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the assumption that the team is two different franchises.. a New York one and a Frisco one.. it is the same team and people should be able to read the whole history from one page... with one set of records... not two.. The Giants dont separate the team on their website.. why should we?Spanneraol (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is making the assumption that the two are separate franchises, and that can be made clear in the leadin. You note that the Giants don't separate them on their website, but the Giants don't really have much detailed history on their website. If their website's history was more than a timeline with a few links to some short articles, they might .... irregardless, I think the length of the article calls for a split (or it very soon will), and this is a convenient place to do so .... I think comparing this article to the team's website is comparing apples and oranges. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support this split, but not necessarily all the others - In concept, I generally don't think splitting should be done. The San Francisco Giants are the same franchise as the New York Giants (and the New York Gothams, etc.) and so there is no inherent need to split. But in this case, we have a 61K byte article that barely covers the pre-1958, and another 60K bytes can be easily written about the pre-1958 history. Which is exceeds the normal article length guidelines. So a split is warranted. And while the split doesn't inherently need to be at the franchise move date, that is the most logical place to split, and so I support doing so. Although I have not checked, I suspect that some (but not all) the proposed split articles would have similar issues. In particular, the Brooklyn/LA Dodgers, the St. Louis Browns (including the old Milwaukee Brewers)/Baltimore Orioles and the 1st Washington Senators/Minnesota Twins. So I would support splitting those. On the other hand, I think the 11 years of 2nd Washington Senators history is better kept with the Texas Rangers. And while I think it is also appropriate to split the Athletics and Braves articles, I think those should be split into two, not three, pieces, given the relatively short histories in Kansas City and Milwaukee. If those Kansas City/Milwaukee components get expanded to, say, 30K or more, at that point it may make sense to have a 3 way split for those franchises. Rlendog (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the possibility of splitting the 1901 Brewers, the 1901/1902 Orioles or the 1969 Pilots, I definitely oppose per WP:COMMONSENSE. Rlendog (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but open to a different solution - The consensus of the supporters (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be that it needs to be split into separate articles based on moves from one city to another, a la the Expos and WP:NHL. The people, like myself, see that just because they move from one city to the next doesn't make them a different franchise and they should be treated as such. Anyone unfamiliar with the history of any given team, typing, let's say Brooklyn Dodgers, might not know it's the same team that now plays in Los Angeles, and the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to make information easy to use. Trying to find a blurb that says they're the same team assumes the reader knows how or where to look. Assuming only makes an ass out of you and me.

An idea, that I happen to like, was tossed around that should alleviate all the issues, though people expressed their doubts about it, but what was said on the Wikipedia talk:BASEBALL page made me realize there's not a lot of ground to stand on with that: create a main synopsis page that has all former names redirect there (i.e. main page stays Oakland Athletics and Philadelphia Athletics and Kansas City Athletics redirect there), but the main Oakland page be a short overview of the franchise. Then 3 more pages can be created: "History of the Philadelphia Athletics", "History of the Kansas City Athletics", and "History of the Oakland Athletics", all prominently displayed on the main, synopsis, feeder page. This allows anyone researching that, yes, the A's played in all three cities, they play in Oakland now, and here's where you can find out more about whichever incarnation you want to learn about. "But that's too many pages, EaglesFan!" Like [GoodDay said], "there's no limit to numbers of articles on Wikipedia." ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 21:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To one of your points, I don't see why it would need to be confusing. Is wording the concern? The Brooklyn Dodgers was the name of the current Los Angeles Dodgers before the franchise moved from Brooklyn, New York to Los Angeles, California in 1958. While in Brooklyn from 1883 to 1957, the Brooklyn Dodgers won one World Series and 12 National League pennants............ People think that would cause readers confusion? Wknight94 ^talk 21:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't find that confusing, nor does anyone that uses WP on a daily basis. However, some people may not either plainly see that line (skimmers) or be frustrated that they have to click to go to the rest of the history ("Cliff Notes"-types). We have to remember, we're writing it not for us, but for others that want as much info as they can get as quickly as possible. That why I believe a simple landing page of - to use your example - "Los Angeles Dodgers" which would focus ONLY on the main points of the Dodgers: who they are, what makes them significant, anybody famous who played, and what they do today. Everything else should go in either "History of the Brooklyn Dodgers" or "History of the Los Angeles Dodgers", accordingly, and have only one paragraph explaining the bare bones history of each, the absolute major points only. This would give someone just trying to get an overview the info they need, but clearly point people who need to do in-depth research tot he correct location. No ambiguity there. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting take. What I think would confuse people is to type in or click on "Brooklyn Dodgers" and wind up not at a page about the Brooklyn Dodgers. Worse yet, the St. Louis Browns. You end up at a page that doesn't have "St.", "Louis" or "Browns" in the title. How confusing would that be for someone unfamiliar with baseball? You don't see the connection until the second paragraph of Baltimore Orioles - again not great for skimmers. As for "History of the Brooklyn Dodgers", I didn't see the need for that since there is no present Brooklyn Dodgers. It would be like having History of Prussia (which has been a redirect to Prussia since its inception). Wknight94 ^talk 23:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That can be remedied by having the same infoboxes we have now, start the article "The Los Angeles Dodgers (formerly the Brooklyn Dodgers) are a team....", and having the paragraph about the history of the Brooklyn team. That helps that person who might be confused why they see Los Angeles instead of Brooklyn, and it keeps with the philosophy that it's simply a name change (Chad Johnson vs Chad Ochocinco or Cassius Clay vs Muhammad Ali) as opposed to an entire philosophy change (the Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul example earlier was incorrect as those cities were in the Eastern Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, then Turkey, respectively, and therefore flawed; it'd be like switching from baseball to cricket to stickball. Same with the Prussia/(eight different countries) example.) ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 00:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Gothams to New York Giants is a name change. New York Giants to San Francisco Giants is a hell of a lot more than a name change, and you are smart enough to realize that. Save us the disingenuous comparisons. Reso lute 00:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really isn't. Yes, they changed cities and home-fields, but do they not still play baseball to win? Do they not have the same objective they had in the city prior? If I ever became a famous person and had to change my name and city, would you write my WP article with my name here in St. Pete and my new pseudonym in Seattle? (Bad example, I know, but just work with me.) Point is, changing name and location does not constitute a general change in their overall raison d'etre, which is to do everything they can to win a pennant. Those cities changed from Roman to Arab to Turkish, three distinctly different cultures and lifestyles. You are smarter than that, too, and it sounds like you're arguing this point for argument's sake. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 00:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Istanbul example is one city, not multiple cities. One continuous entity with three distinct epochs, thus three names, three articles. The Giants are one continuous entity with two distinct epochs. As to the rest, your argument is a strawman in the shape of a red herring. Seriously. Answer the question: If I am searching for information on the New York Giants baseball team, why do I have to suffer through irrelevant information on the team in San Francisco, which I do not care about, to find what I am looking for? This is where we go back to the Istanbul example. If I want to read about the historical time in that city's history when it was Roman controlled, I can quickly go to Constantinople and find the information I want easily and quickly. Reso lute 05:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, now it's clear you're just arguing for arguments sake, or you really just don't get it. Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul are, while geographically the same place, three different cities with three different cultures, languages, and ideals. The Eastern Romans/Byzantines believed that it was their Rome, head of religion (Christianity), culture, and the Empire. The Arabs that conquered the city in the late 1400s believed it, not to be the center of Christianity (obviously) or even the center of their Islamic faith; that was still Mecca. It was, however, an important port city in their extensive Empire. The present-day Turks don't even have it as their capital, but it is their largest city, and they no longer speak the Oman's tongue their. So, to say they are the same city, just different names, makes this a disingenuous comparison. All the teams did is move. People do it all the time, yet we don't have separate articles on "Scott Kazmir (Rays)" vs "Scott Kazmir (Angels)", or "barack Obama (Hawaii)" vs "Barack Obama (Illinois)" vs "Barack Obama (Washington, D.C.)". Each of those teams that moved has the vast majority of their same staff, players, and coaches, and the same exact owner when it moved from one city to the next. The only difference in the team was the stadium they played in and the city on their away jerseys. It's not "a violent tear" as you put it, but a convenient place to make your case to keep the Expos away from the bumbling Nats article. And I've answered your question twice, Rlendog answered it once, and Spanneraol answered it more than twice, and I'm not about to waste my time and answer it again. If you don't like the answers now, then that's on you and not me. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 12:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not I am a skimmer, if I search for "Brooklyn Dodgers", my expectation is to find an article discussing a team from Brooklyn, not an article that discusses a team from Los Angeles. Both the current situation, and your proposal lead to the latter, which is not intuitive. A franchise relocation is a violent tear in the fabric of a team's history. Certainly the record books remain, etc, and that needs to be noted. But you have never explained to me why, when I choose to search for the New York Giants that I have to go through an article relating to the San Francisco Giants first. I don't care about the San Francisco Giants. Neither the current situation, nor your proposal benefits the reader, who has to shuffle through information they do not necessarily want to search for what they do. Reso lute 23:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point, Resolute, and as you said, it's not a "violent tear" and that why they shouldn't be regarded as separate entities. As someone looking for New York Giants topics, to say you don't care about San Francisco is short sighted, as, just like their history in New York is important, the reverse is just as important to the entire story. Choosing to have them split into "New York Giants" and "San Francisco Giants" without a catch-all page basically relegates them as - other than a lip-service blurb in each other's articles - non-related teams to the untrained person. You ask anyone on the street, and, unless they know baseball intimately like we all in this project apparently do, they will say that you were crazy for saying some football team is in any way related to some baseball team 3000 miles away. Same with Brooklyn/LA, Philly/Oakland (and even less will know they played in KC; I didn't until I was 21 and I grew up in Philly!), and every other move prior to the 80s. Again, you can't assume anything, and to do is either ignorant or arrogant. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 00:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I said it is a violent tear. Regardless, having a separate article to focus on each incarnation of a franchise does not mean that we are treating them as separate entities. Honestly, I think you vastly underestimate the intelligence of the leader if you think an opening like "The New York Giants were a baseball team in the National League from 1883 until they relocated to San Francisco in 1957..." does not clue a reader into the fact that this is the history of a franchise that moved to another city, and that there is a link between the NY Giants and the SF Giants. At any rate, you continue to fail to address my question on why I should care about the team in San Francisco if I am looking for information on the team in New York. Reso lute 00:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I lost the ability to read tonight; my bad. I deal with the general public on a daily basis, and trust me, you can never underestimate the lack of intelligence of humanity nowadays. Plus, you're again, with your own lead-off sentence, leading the reader to believe they're separate with "The New York Giants were a baseball team...." A catch-all page, IMHO, is the only clear way to help solve that issue. I thought I did answer your question, but I'll be more than glad to. To look at the team that started in New York and not care less where they are now gives you an incomplete answer to your query when searching "New York Giants". The purpose of WP is to provide knowledge to its fullest (verifiable) extent. Someone who is not attentive enough may not find the correlation between the two. On a logistics note, New York Giants will have to go to a dab page since there's currently a modern occupant there (making the modern occupant add the (football) modifier), so going to "New York Giants" will require a reader to go through two clicks anyway. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 00:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We use redirects all the time in Wikipedia. If I type in Tursiops, I end up on a page called "Bottlenose dolphin", if I type in Allen Konigsberg, I end up on a page called "Woody Allen", if I type in War of the Conquest, I end up on a page called "French and Indian War". I don't see why people who look for sports teams would be any more confused than people who look for animals, actors or wars. Of course, the article should note the prior locations early on. For example, List of San Francisco Giants managers notes that fact in the 2nd sentence. But if someone types in St. Louis Browns and end up on something called "Baltimore Orioles" they will likely figure out quickly that there is a relationship there. And someone who types in Baltimore Orioles is most likely not looking for information about the first two years of the Yankees franchise. As to why you should care about the team in San Francisco if you are looking for information on the team in NY, it's because it is the same team. The same reason that if you are looking for information on the Babe Ruth New York Yankees, you may care about the Mickey Mantle incarnation - it's because it is the same team. And if you are only interested in the years the team happened to play in NY, then you can read (and edit, if so inclined) only the sections that cover the time in NY. Just like if I only care about the Yankees before George Steinbrenner, I can read and edit only those parts of the Yankees article. Or if I only care about the Mets when they played in the Polo Grounds, I can read or edit just those parts of the Mets article. That said, I happen to agree that the Giants article should be split, but on article length grounds, not on geographical grounds, but the geographical change is the place that would make most sense for a split in this case. Rlendog (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. on the St. Louis Browns.. this can be a bit confusing because the Cardinals were also once called the Browns (and Brown Stockings).. the link for the Browns just goes to the Orioles, perhaps it should be clarified somewhere that more than one team had that name?Spanneraol (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough to create a dab page on St. Louis Browns and have all the possibilities go there: see Washington Senators. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 01:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like there already is a dab page on St. louis Browns. What link redirected you strictly to the O's? ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys really think that anyone would be searching for information on the Brooklyn Dodgers that didn't already know they were currently in L.A.? That's just silly.. the idea from FaninTampa about the main article with the branches is the only one that makes any sense to me. Spanneraol (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's possible someone is doing a school project on Jackie Robinson and didn't know they were the same "Dodgers", so that's why I mentioned the catch-all page. Thanks for the support, Spanneraol. (Oh, and you all can call me EaglesFaninTampa...I'm just pissed at the Eagles now ;-) ) ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 00:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that student should be able to read the first few sentences of the Los Angeles Dodgers article and learn that they used to play in Brooklyn. Rlendog (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, and that's why I'm against any changes (except merging Montreal into the Nationals, but I'm not going there again without a flak jacket), but if we must simply for how long the articles have become, the most logical conclusion is catch-all of current team, and "History of..." for all incarnations. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 01:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what makes the most sense for sure. I don't understand the reasoning for the other changes.Spanneraol (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does tittling it History of the Brooklyn Dodgers make more sense than just titling it Brooklyn Dodgers. Remember the title of an article should be the most likely search phrase that is typed into the search box. And everyone here I am sure will agree that people looking for the history of the Brooklyn Dodgers are going to just typr Brooklyn Dodgers and expect to show up at a page aout the Dodgers time in Brooklyn. Redirecting them to the Los Angeles Dodgers page and then making them go to a seperate page for the in depth History of the Brooklyn Dodgers is what doesn't make sense and would confuse readers for no apparent reason. Users shouldn't have to go to two different pages to get to the information they want if there is no legitimate reason to do so like disambiguation or size issues. EaglesFanInTampa mentions that we have to keep the reader in mind when we do these articles, this is actually why I am confused by your hesitence to make this split, in my opinion mushing them together and your above solution actually make it harder for the reader and seem to be aimed more at the editors and experienced users of wikipedia. To be blunt I think either the status quo or Eaglefan's other solution actually make it harder for the reader rather than easier. This whole split idea is actually aimed at the average reader who when they type in a name of a team that has moved expect to show up at the history of that time period of the franchise. They do not expect to show up at any other time period of the franchise and more than likely don't care about any other time period. We make sure we adhere to summary style by making it clear that the page is only part of the franchises history and that more information can be found at X page if they want it. You have to remember the average reader might not be as hardcore a fan as you and probably doesn't want all their information in one shot and definately doesn't want to have to search for it among irrelevant information. -DJSasso (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because titling the article "Brooklyn Dodgers" makes it seem like a different team... Again, most people don't treat the Dodgers as two different teams... If you want to know about the Dodgers you want to read about the whole history of the team... It is easier on the reader if that is readily accesible. I'm thinking of the current Dodger fan who wants to read about how the team started.. and doesn't want to distinquish between the Brooklyn Dodgers, Brooklyn Robins, Brooklyn Bridegrooms, etc. and may not even know about the old nicknames... having it all available on one page makes it so much easier and it's much more likley that an LA Dodger fan will want to know about the teams history than someone would just care about the days in Brooklyn and not know that the team moved. Spanneraol (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reality of the situation is that this information is going to be on two pages and will not all be on one page. The situation we are really dealing with is what we call the pages. WP:SPLIT already is coming into play in that we have to split this pages, this isn't really negotiable as its going to have to happen. What we call the new pages is what is really being debated. Tittling the articles the Brooklyn Dodgers doesn't really make it seem like a seperate team, I mean yes I can see your point somewhat, but anyone who reads a couple words into the article will know that the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to LA. -DJSasso (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPLIT doesn't demand that the pages split.. they aren't close to 100KB and I'd say that the scope of the topic justifies the added reading time. Spanneraol (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you are missing the fact that this page is missing about 40% or more of the information it should have because its minimizing the teams time in New York....this is where the issue we are having is. Because its all mashed on one page we have had to cut out important information. The point of the split is so we can expand the article to have the information that this page really should have but can't because we are at the upper limit. Once you add in the information this page should have about the New York Giants you are looking at a upwards of a 200k article which is almost twice what WP:SPLIT does demand. -DJSasso (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page has quite a bit of history from NY era... and I think your assumption that some magical baseball historian is suddenly going to jump in and write it is a bit far fetched.. where have they been so far? What has stopped them? Splitting off sections, like is already done with the Shot Heard 'Round the World chapter might be more appropriate. Splitting off say Histor of the NY Giants in the 1940s as it's own article with a summarized paragraph makes more sense to me... than messing up the regular article.Spanneraol (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that far fetched. That is how wikipedia works, it happens on thousands of articles on a daily basis. Lots of articles get split every day and then they expand. People are more likely to work on a smaller article than they are on a longer article, this has been prooven in the past because people see a large article and assume its compelete whereas they see a smaller article and assume something is missing, and thus go about adding information to it. How is splitting off the New York Giants time in its entirety different than juts splitting of a decade as you suggest. When you do a split of an article you are supposed to split at the most logical point, in the case of a sports team, that is a move. Yes this page does have quite a bit of NY information, but look at how many years it spent in NY vs. SF and consider its World Series visits etc and you realize that there should be alot more New York information than San Fran information. To be honest this page is a faily poor history article because of the current situation. If I was a fan of the Giants (either version) I would be pretty disappointed by it. -DJSasso (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, there is plenty of scope for expansion of the New York era. 1910 through 1942 - a period of 32 years during which the Giants won 10 pennants and 3 World Championships - is glossed over in two paragraphs. Rlendog (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the point that the articles may need to be split, but to doing it in a way that presents to the average person online that these are separate franchises is a disservice to the entire project. The whole idea of this website is to spread information, not make it more difficult to ascertain since you have to do detective work to go from one city to the next in the history of the team. Follow the KISS method: Keep It Simple, Stupid! Don't alienate people by making the process convoluted or this just becomes nothing more than an editable blog for our own amusement. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 12:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at any team page that has been split. Say the Calgary Flames for example since its an FA. There are no less than 3 places that are easy to see by someone skimming that indicate the team moved from Atlanta. 1> The Infobox whose whole purpose is for such skimming. 2> The lead paragraph that indicates the team moved from Atlanta. 3> An entire section summarizing the Atlanta Flames article. And the same in reverse on the Atlanta article for all 3. Please tell me at which point we are presenting them as seperate franchises. I don't mean this as a deservice to anyone, but even someone in grade school would get the idea that they are the same franchise. This is the KISS method. Trying to combine them all together makes the articles a big mess, by splitting them out into easy to read and easy to navigate sections makes it easier for the lowest common denominator to get the information they want. -DJSasso (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have said it better. Splitting would make it less confusing, not more. I'm honestly surprised anyone disagrees with that. Wknight94 ^talk 14:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree... splitting the franchise into two separate entities is 100 percent more confusing.Spanneraol (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you say so. So you find the Atlanta Flames/Calgary Flames division confusing? Amazing. I just don't see it. Two sentences into Atlanta Flames, it's so clear what the situation is that I can't see anyone being confused. Wknight94 ^talk 15:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Now it's starting to appear like this is turning into a preference issue more than an overall continuity issue. We have people who are for simple names like "Brooklyn Dodgers" and "Los Angeles Dodgers" all citing the WP:NHL project as the reason it "must be done." Why haven't WP:NFL and WP:NBA followed suit if this is the "only way"? They have split articles over there (see History of the St. Louis Rams, History of the Los Angeles Lakers, History of the Oakland Raiders, and the largest example I could find: History of the New York Giants, which is a catch-all page (like I'm proposing) for History of the New York Giants (1925-1978), History of the New York Giants (1979-1993), and History of the New York Giants (1994-present)) that clearly use the words "History of" and define the entire franchise history in sections of those articles, moves and all. I was proposing a compromise by suggesting each city have its own "History of..." page and not relegated to the current team's "History of...", but if that's not acceptable, we can always do like they do over on the other two projects.... ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 15:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't saying it must be done that way cause the NHL does it that way. I specifically did not say that. What I did do was give you example of how it could look and to show you that splitting doesn't mean they are being treated as two seperate franchises. Seattle Supersonics/Oklahoma City Thunder and there are also football examples. What this is, is a case of natural growth of wikipedia, everything starts on one page cause its easier that way and as the wiki grows things split off. There was never a consensus on any project (nfl, nba, mlb) to have them as one page. The situation has always been that there are a vocal minority who oppose splitting for no good reason. The problem is all the examples people have against splitting are from before wikipedia existed, so when pages for those franchies were first created they were created as one page. It is more likely that all of them would be split had they moved today. I would also note that the minor leagues of baseball and basketball also split at moves. It only seems to be the major league teams that seem to try to hold on to being one page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, the Seattle/OKC example, and the Browns/Ravens example I think you were alluding to, are "worst-case scenarios" by their respective leagues to placate the jilted people of the city they vacated. They aren't, according to both leagues, the same franchise, and they warrant their own separate pages with no ties to the other, other than "This team left for x city because...and the league defines them as separate entities," or something to that effect. Most cases aren't like that and they're simply a move from one city to the next as one continuous team. I use the NFL and NBA as examples of the other major leagues that have splits that aren't like what's being talked about here. In regards to the minor leagues, I can't attest personally to their histories, but from what I understand, they don't carry their records - and sometimes team names - when they move, but again, I could be 100% wrong on that. Someone else better versed in the Minors could answer that part of it for you. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 16:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, since its not really on topic, but the Seattle situation, they are considered the same franchise. The only thing that got ruled on was that the team name and colours be left behind in Seattle. The records and championships etc all moved with the team. The Browns/Ravens as you mentioned are a different situation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also a bit off-topic, here's how BR Bullpen does Brooklyn Dodgers: [1]. Is that really so confusing? Blows everyone's mind? Having the entire Brooklyn phase of the franchise in one place causes a lot of consternation? Does it sound like they are twisting history to make them seem like there is no connection to the L.A. Dodgers? Even if so, could a wording tweak help that? Wknight94 ^talk 18:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to use Baseball Reference as a source, why not have it the way they list it on their main teams page? And yes, you're right, DJSasso, about the Sonics. Sorry, my NBA is rusty since I don't follow as much anymore. The fact remains, though, that the Sonics/Thunder was still a special circumstance, not totally unrelated to the Browns/Ravens situation, and could warrant a separate page since, again, the team name was not allowed to leave Seattle. It seems we're all talking in circles to each other and nothing creative or constructive is getting done. I personally think having the way this split is originally proposed to be confusing to the average reader (whom, BTW, WP was created for and not the people like us who know the topics), while others think splitting is the only way, and the only way to split it is by making them separate franchise pages, whether they're separate franchises or not. it almost feels like we're grinding our wheels into the mud with no tow truck in sight. But, I still offer my alternative as an attractive way to split the articles (which, I do agree with you, they do need a split to tell the whole story), but in the shape of the History of the New York Giants catch-all as opposed to Hartford Whalers for one and Carolina Hurricanes for the other. ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's mixing issues. I asked if people thought that BB Bullpen page looked so confusing. Does it? Your term "franchise pages" is interesting. That presupposes that an individual article = a franchise page. I never saw that anywhere. You're so sure that "the average reader" will assume that formula as well? I'm not. An article is a for a subject, not a franchise. Also, your compromise New York Giants example is not germaine - History of the New York Giants (1925-1978) is the history of a subject that still exists - the New York Giants. If the New York Giants had been in a different city during that time, it could have been called simply, "Omaha Giants", with no "History of..." or year range disambiguation. If the Omaha Giants story spanned multiple articles, they could be "Omaha Giants (1925-1940)". E.g., African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954), not "History of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)". Wknight94 ^talk 18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the football Giants played in (at least) 3 cities, in 3 different states, during the 1925-1978 period - New York, New Haven and East Rutherford. But it would be silly to split the article up in that way (although it may possibly make sense to split the Giants history articles at the point they moved to East Rutherford. But it also would be silly to split the baseball Giants page(s) at, say, 1963, when the move provides a natural break that allows for substantive content both before and after. Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

This discussion is getting long winded and not really going anywhere anymore. I think it is safe to say that there probably is a consensus for a split, just not a consensus for doing it in the manner originally proposed by Wknight94. Wknight94, are you totally against maintaining just one parent article on the history of the entire franchise with supporting daughter articles that go into more detail? I think that would get the support of most of the opposition here so long as care is taken in synching up all the material. I think that would also satisfy your actual complaints about the shortcoming of the current article without creating the "one franchise/two parent article" proposition that most of us opposition voters object to. Indrian (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you all decide. I'm just confused by the circular logic (like Spanneraol saying no one would search for the Brooklyn Dodgers without knowing who the Brooklyn Dodgers were - but then basically saying those same people would not understand who the Brooklyn Dodgers were if the content were in a separate article) and the weird counterexamples and lack of direct responses, but I'm frankly losing interest. If everyone thinks an article whose subject is the Brooklyn Dodgers and whose title is "Brooklyn Dodgers", is too difficult for people to comprehend, then have at it. Wknight94 ^talk 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't really follow the whole confusion thing myself either, I just feel that since the team is a single entity it should have a single parent article (ie only a San Francisco Giants article and not also a New York Giants (National League) article). A "History of the New York Giants" article is fine with me so long as the History of the San Francsico Giants article contains a summary of the team's history in both New York and San Francisco and the New York Giants history article is a daughter linked to this main article that just goes into more detail. Indrian (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a "History of New York Giants" article, I would expect someone to eventually say, "Why do we have 'History of' in the title?" but if everyone else is fine with that eventuality, then so am I. Wknight94 ^talk 23:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:NAME is pretty clear that the concise, easily recognizable name—in this case, "New York Giants (National League)"—should be used. BRMo (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is "New York Giants" (National League) a better choice than "History of the New York Giants" if you are looking for information on the history of the Giants? Spanneraol (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, we couldn't name the article "History of the New York Giants" because an article by that name already exists for the football franchise, so it would need to be disambiguated by "(National League)" regardless. The WP:NAME policy lists five criteria to use in naming an article: a) easily recognizable—the name that is most commonly used, b) easy to find—that is, the term that readers are likely to look for in a search, c) precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously, d) concise—brief and to the point, and e) consistent—that is, following the same pattern as other similar articles. All five criteria are better satisfied by "New York Giants (National League)" than by "History of the New York Giants (National League)." The shorter title is obviously more concise, it's the common name, and I think it's far more likely that readers would search for the shorter title. It's also consistent with the naming of other articles on baseball teams, and although one might argue that "History of..." is more precise, it's precision that isn't necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. BRMo (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First.. I don't think anyone would do a search for "New York Giants (National League)"... Most likely they would search for the SF Giants expecting the info to be there... IF they searched for NY Giants they would wind up at a page for the football team anyways... and they'd have to follow a link there to the baseball article... and that link could easily be to a history article. Spanneraol (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Any "History of X" article should have a corresponding "X" article. Often, the "History of X" article has been split from the "X" article. That wouldn't be the case here. It's almost like saying the New York Giants are not notable as a subject but the history of the non-notable subject is itself notable. Doesn't make sense to me. Wknight94 ^talk 01:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe the history article should be titled "History of the San Francisco Giants, Part 1: The New York Giants"... or something like that then.Spanneraol (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're going to send BRMo into a tailspin. How about History of the Los Angeles Dodgers (Brooklyn) - I'm guessing that sounds clearer than just Brooklyn Dodgers, right? Just don't put my name down as supporting that. I like simple - "Brooklyn Dodgers" is simple. Wknight94 ^talk 01:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire exchange above misses the point entirely. We are talking about creating a daughter article here. The parent article is San Francisco Giants. This article covers every aspect of the franchise, including the history. The daughter article of that one is History of the San Francisco Giants, which goes into more detail on that one facet of the organization. Now that one is too big, so we have "history of" daughter articles. Things Like History of the New York Giants (National League) or History of the San Francisco Giants (1999-2009). The daughter article would not be called New York Giants (National League), because the article is not about every aspect of the franchise, it is just about the history. Daughter articles often have more convoluted names because a search on wikipedia often starts with the most general article (in this case San Francsico Giants) and then moves into the daughters if one wants more information. Indrian (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)But it would be about every aspect of the New York Giants period of the franchise. This page would be the parent article of the New York Giants time frame. Really you would look at the San Francisvo Giants page and the New York Giants pages being on the same level (ie sibling pages as opposed to the SF Giants being the parent page), each with the ability to have "History of" pages below them. Except that the New York Giants page would in effect be the history of page for that time period as there probably isn't a need yet to have two NYG pages. -DJSasso (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the problem with your idea.. you want them equal as separate entities... rather than the NY Giants being a subsection of SF Giants, which they ARE in reality.Spanneraol (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this in no way makes them seperate entities. You really need to get that point through your head. Just because there are two pages does not mean they are seperate entities. Wikipedia deals in subjects, not franchises, the New York Giants and San Francisco Giants. Are two seperate but related (by way of being the same franchise) subjects. This is done for any subject you can choose on wikipedia, from wars to businesses, to countries histories. To cities that have changed names. -DJSasso (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but you see Djsasso that is where the disagreement is between the supporters and the opposers. We who oppose the proposal made at the start of this insanely long discussion object to the New York Giants and San Francisco Giants as being treated as separate entities and fully believe this solution does this, whether you do or not, for reason stated so many times now that I will not repeat them again. The proposal I made at the start of this particular thread of the discussion was intended as a compromise that deals with Wknight94's main concerns while also being sensitive of the opinions of myself and some of the other opposition posters. You are just taking us around in circles again. Indrian (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the problem is that Brooklyn Dodgers for example in their opinion should be redirecting to the LA Dodgers which is an incorrect redirect. Anyone typing in that search term wants the Brooklyn history first and foremost. Be that as a redirect to the Brooklyn specific history or as the tittle of the article. I suppose either is ok, though as the title is the much more sensical way to do it. Having it go to the LA Dodgers is really just plain wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) For the record I too would support going with a simple title like "Brooklyn Ddogers" vs. "History of ..." LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Indrian, you're saying History of the San Francisco Giants (New York) - I just mentioned History of the Los Angeles Dodgers (Brooklyn). That's not missing your point - it's hitting it dead-on. And yes, I would support these two titles - as a second choice to just New York Giants (National League) and Brooklyn Dodgers. Brooklyn Dodgers would then redirect to History of the Los Angeles Dodgers (Brooklyn) and History of the San Francisco Giants (New York) would be in the New York Giants hatnote or disambiguation page or whatever. Wknight94 ^talk 03:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I should not have stated the entire discussion was missing the point, but parts of it certainly were. That particular response from you was on point and in the same spirit of compromise I was hoping to engender. My apologies. Indrian (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary - just thought maybe I was missing something. If others agree here, we should propose this idea at WT:MLB and other team pages too. Wknight94 ^talk 03:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this proposal.Spanneraol (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've got a problem with this. WP:NAME is Wikipedia policy. The shorter, simpler title is consistent with naming policy, which we shouldn't be overriding in order to make a point about continuity of franchises. Wikipedia articles provide information; they do not make points. BRMo (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have "History of..." articles so this isn't a new thing and thus does not violate any policy. We are simply saying these are all sub articles of the existing history article and therefore it doesn't violate your precious policy.Spanneraol (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any of his comments above? We have History of X articles when there already is an article titled X. In this case there is not. The names proposed above do actually violate the policy. Whether or not we should violate it is a different matter. -DJSasso (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's not my first choice either, but if it gets the content into a separate article, and redirects provide easy navigation to the content, then it's an acceptable second choice. Wknight94 ^talk 04:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree its better than the current so I will take it as a first step. But I am sure in the future I would probably put in a rename request. -DJSasso (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Djsasso, we're talking about the History of San Francisco Giants (New York) option now. A bit different than earlier. Wknight94 ^talk 04:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know...still dislike it...but its better than cramming it onto this page, it would be my 3rd choice.....I would rather History of the New York Giants (National League) though than that version...but my #1 choice would be your original proposal. -DJSasso (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This approach seems ridiculous to me. It's all about a few editors wanting to make a point, and contrary to how things are done everywhere else in Wikipedia. The name of the article on pre-Turkish Istanbul is Constantinople, not History of Istanbul (Constantinople). BRMo (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree this is verging on a WP:POINT situation. But I will take what I can get since this is the farthest we have gotten on the subject in atleast 3 years that I have been suggesting it. -DJSasso (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any split. The SF Giants are the holders of all history, records, etc... of the NY Giants franchise per the Giants themselves and MLB. They are one and the same team. For Wikipedia to arbitrarily split off their history is both inaccurate and potentially confusing to readers. Gateman1997 (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what I want to understand is that, it is preferable to be missing information than to in some way (which I cannot see happening) give the impression that they are seperate entities? Wikipedia is not artbitrarily splitting their history, they are spreading it to two pages. Books don't write an entire book on one page, why would wikipedia? How is having to flip the page so to speak confusing. Especially when both pages make it clear that the franchise is the same franchise. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this oppose either. Wikipedia regularly splits long articles to get to a more manageable length. And the least arbitrary place to split a history of the Giants is the point they moved to San Francisco. Rlendog (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE any split such as this, as the Giants are one continuous organization. Would you want to split out the "New York Gothams" as well? As noted, all Giants records include New York and San Francisco days. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying otherwise. Did the latest two opposes see the latest proposal? Splitting the New York portion of the SF Giants history into History of the San Francisco Giants (New York)? Wknight94 ^talk 12:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would splitting NY Gothams accomplish? Splitting between pre-1958 and post-1958 provides scope for comprehensive articles that comply with Wikipedia length guidelines. Splitting out the NY Gothams period accomplishes absolutely nothing. Rlendog (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that. First, can't say I like that naming convention. Second, maybe it's because I read long articles all day long, but I don't see any issue with the current length of the history article as it stands and wouldn't mind if the current article's NY section got fleshed out a bit more. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry, not sure I follow. Who was proposing a separate article for just the New York Gothams? I was proposing a separate article for the New York portion of the Giants history. Are you proposing something other than History of the San Francisco Giants (New York)? Wknight94 ^talk 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The oppose you replied to by Muboshgu. He mentioned the New York Gothams. Rlendog is actually agreeing with you. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso is correct. I'm sorry if I was unclear. Rlendog (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current article length is already at the upper limits of WP:SPLIT and the article is missing large sections of important New York Giants information. As some San Fran information. Once you add that in, it is far past the splitting point. This is why a split needs to be done. So that information that should be there can be there. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: the split happens to pages entitled History of the New York Giants (National League) (and hopefully, we can work with WP:NFL to get History of the New York Giants become a dab page and have them move their catch-all to History of the New York Giants (football)) and History of the San Francisco Giants with New York Giants (National League) redirect to the appropriate "History of..." page. Both of those pages could start off with "This is about the history of the current baseball franchise in San Francisco from (date-date). For team history from (date) onward, please go to History of the San Francisco Giants. For information about the team in general, please go to San Francisco Giants." and San Francisco Giants could remain the catch-all parent page I, and I believe Indrian, have proposed since the beginning. It may be more wordy and more clicks than "necessary", but it allows the biggest issues to be addressed: you can type in "New York Giants (National League)" and get just the NYG info, it established with no ambiguity that they are the same franchise, and it has a parent page that would have just key points and topics with nothing too in-depth for the casual reader. Thoughts? ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 17:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I and I believe Wknight have been trying to say since the beginning. While I would prefer the straight name. We will accept a redirect as long as it goes to the history article and not the main san fran article. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, my main concern has always been the lack of clear, concise wording that established they are, in fact, the same thing. "History of..." lets people know there's more to the story, and with a statement like I proposed in the beginning of the article, while my first choice would be a redirect to the main parent, I'm cool with it going to the subordinate page. So, the San Fran Giants would be come 3 pages: "San Francisco Giants", "History of the New York Giants (National League)", and "History of the San Francisco Giants", with the former having bare-bones, combined information, and the latter two having in-depth structure and prose, along with the statement. I'm for that if everyone else is! ~~Eagles~~Fan In Tampa 17:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Hopefully some of the other opposers will chime in. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The History-page proposal is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me too. Indrian (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modified proposal[edit]

Alright, with at least three people seeming to be on-board, let's see if we can make some headway here. Since it's been determined to mostly everyone's satisfaction that these articles need to be split at least for size constraints, the best compromise seems to be as follows:

The split happens by move, and we create pages entitled ~~History of the New York Giants (National League)~~ History of the New York Giants (NL) (and hopefully, we can work with WP:NFL to get History of the New York Giants become a dab page and have them move their catch-all to History of the New York Giants (football), but that's not necessary - yet) and History of the San Francisco Giants with New York Giants (National League) redirecting to the appropriate "History of..." page. Both of those pages could start off with "This is about the history of the current baseball franchise in San Francisco from (date-date). For team history from (date) onward, please go to History of the San Francisco Giants. For information about the team in general, please go to San Francisco Giants." and San Francisco Giants could remain the catch-all parent page.

What does everyone think? ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 18:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were going to go with History of San Francisco Giants (New York), but History of New York Giants (National League) is fine too. Those are acceptable 2nd and 3rd choices (respectively) for me, with my original proposal as (apparently doomed) 1st choice. Wknight94 ^talk 18:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I started to see that proposal, but that seemed way too convoluted and awkward, though there truly is no ambiguity there, I guess. At least with mine, it keeps the WP:COMMONNAME people happy, but allowing the concerns of people like me to be satisfied. ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is their a reason to spell out National League rather than just using NL? Spanneraol (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little neater looking IMHO. If there is precedent for NL instead, that's fine too. Wknight94 ^talk 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have New York Giants (PL), Washington Nationals (UA) and Cleveland Blues (NL) all of which use the abreviation rather than spelling out the league. I think their are more also but those are the first ones I found. Spanneraol (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, we can do History of the New York Giants (NL); I was just modifying the most vocal option. Honestly, I don't think anything needs to be done with any of them ~~(except making Montreal/DC the same, that is)~~, but they are going to need splitting soon, so why not go with the majority that say the splits need to happen for the size issue anyway? ~~I just hope the Montreal clan will accept this proposal as working with their article, too, and not just the American teams....~~ ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 00:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bet on it. We've been through that debate far too often, and the Expos article is not owned by the baseball project. Just leave it be. Reso lute 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm modifying my above statement, as Wknight's right; this is neither the time nor place to deal with this. It took me getting some well-needed sleep to realize it. So, I'm willing to forgo for another time, as I said int he collapse below. I hope you do the same, too. So, back to the matter at hand: personally, I want to see what others think of the proposal I brought forth for the SF/NY Giants split. I saw three people above like it, one OK with it, but I haven't heard much else. I also modified my option above to reflect the good point Spanneraol brought up. Ideas, comments, suggestions? ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 12:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe this is a very poor article title relative to more intuitive options, but at the very least, this is a start. Anything that helps free these very real histories of relocated teams from being buried under their current location is a step in the right direction. If we do go with "history of..." for these article titles, I would suggest retargeting the various NY Giants related redirects to that article, as opposed to San Francisco Giants. Reso lute 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what my intent was with this particular proposal. As I stated previously, it solves both sides concerns: the redirects go to the appropriate "History of..." article instead of the parent catch-all (NY Giants to "History of NY Giants (NL)", KC A's to "History of KC A's", etc.) and so long as the article makes perfectly clear this is just a small portion of the story ("History of..." infers that, as well as some incarnation to the following statement: "This is about the history of the current baseball franchise in San Francisco from (date-date). For team history from (date) onward, please go to History of the San Francisco Giants. For information about the team in general, please go to San Francisco Giants."), it satisfies my issues. "SF Giants" would still be the main catch-all page that connects the two together to tell the entire story, and SF Giants would need to be changed to a minimalist, bare-bones, "key points only" article with all the meat going to the child "History of..." ones. Make sense? ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 19:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in Montreal stays in Montreal.

I don't know what your vendetta is against anyone to challenge your norm, but as a former Major League Baseball team, the Montreal Expos belong to the WP:Baseball project before Canada. It'd be the same as saying the San Francisco Giants belong to WP:California or have a war between them and WP:New York for who's the controlling project, while WP:Baseball is forced to the side. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard or read on a message board, Resolute, so save your self-righteous crap for somewhere else. Montreal belongs to WP:Baseball first and foremost, esp since the team was never owned by the confederate government, or even the city, nor WP:NHL. It's a part of WP:Canada, yes, but as an MLB team, this project has first rights. Most people don't need a distinction, as most people respect others of differing opinions. You obviously don't, so if you don't like what I have to say, do what you must. I'm sure I'll have people, however, that may not like how I said it, but will back me up in my intent. If not, then it's no skin off my back either way. It's not like this is the only thing in my life. ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 00:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that none of these articles actually "belong" to anyone.. thats kindof the point of a wiki... Spanneraol (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, Spanneraol. I feel like an idiot for being baited into that one. Thanks for clearing my head - seriously! :-) ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that is exactly it. And we have debated the Expos situation to death, most recently only a couple months ago. And while I will argue my position on these split proposals, I abide by whatever consensus forms and do not worry about the result into the future if I don't like it. It's a shame that others struggle to accept that. As it is, there are clearly two factions wrt the Expos article: the baseball project, which is divided on how to treat relocated teams, and the Canada project, which strongly favours leaving the article as is. The end result on every single discussion on this has leaned strongly towards maintaining the status quo. It is, frankly, arrogant to argue that the baseball project deserves precedence on any of these articles. In this case, it shows a significant lack of understanding of the topic. Reso lute 00:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to beat a dead horse, however, for the sake of the reader and damn our own desires, it should remain consistent throughout all baseball-related articles. If you're a reader and you're looking at History of the Philadelphia Athletics, History of the Boston Braves, and History of the Brooklyn Dodgers with clear, concise statements stating what part of the entire history of the team they are and an easy-to-find, a link to click the latter part(s) of the history (History of the Los Angeles Dodgers, History of the Milwaukee Braves, etc.), and a catch-all parent page with the current team's name (Oakland Athletics, Los Angeles Dodgers), but then all-of-a-sudden see Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals as two separate, seemingly-unrelated pages with no catch-all, doesn't that allude to separate teams? Honestly, this has to work across the board, not just on a case-by-case basis, if this is to provide the service to the readers it's being intended for. People like yourself, Reso, are going to have to compromise and not stand so steadfast. If that can't be accomplished, I'm going to have to withdraw my support for splitting and vote to leave it the status quo. As much as that has the "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude, I see no point in doing all this work if it will eventually lead to the same confusion we have today. ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 01:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wiki - that means consistency is not guaranteed. I was fully planning on going from one moved team to another proposing a split (at least until I lost my mind and gave up). Every one of them is going to have a different set of people who "maintain" the article(s) with different opinions. And I would not be surprised in the least if we wound up with a some inconsistency. It's really not the end of the world. If someone sees History of articles and then suddenly find themselves on Montreal Expos sans "History of", their head is not going to explode like in Scanners. Idle readers might not even notice. Every article is written and maintained by a slightly different set of people, so inconsistencies are inevitable. Nothing worth taking your ball and going home over. That's my opinion anyway. Wknight94 ^talk 01:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hilarious that you choose to lecture me on the need to compromise when you've hardly done the same yourself. As Wknight notes, the very nature of this project means there will be inconsistencies. Frankly, I do agree with you on the argument that a consistent front is ideal, but I feel strongly that the "history of..." prefix is useless and redundant. I'm not sitting here pressing for my preferred name of this proposed split article in this case. That may not be the "compromise" you demand, but it is what I offer. At any rate, I find it hilarious that you have chosen to generate all of this KB of complaints when I simply suggested that we leave the Expos article be. This is not a debate about how to treat that article, and the fact that you needlessly brought it up here points to your own "vendetta against anyone who challenges your norm". We've debated that article far too many times to count. Just leave it alone. Reso lute 01:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you see, this type of thing is what irks me to no end. My comments about "consistency" are scoffed as an "unnecessary distraction", yet with people like Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart constantly mocking Wikipedia for its perceived inaccuracy, one would think of trying to actually help change the image painted in the media, and what better and easier way to start then to get through the bureaucracy that always stops progress and make it consistent? You can have both free exchange of ideas and rules; that's what WP:NOT is all about. Just as we have a general WP:CITE rule, we, as WP:Baseball, can have a general consistency rule. The idea that it can't be done is simply a cop-out of not wanting to rock the boat. I can appreciate that; do you really think I want to stake my reputation on here over something this seemingly trivial? Hell no, but no one else is going to stand-up and say something that needs to be said. I have no dilusions this thread will ever change a thing; in fact, my opinion by you is probably shot to hell as being nothing more than a "hopeless dreamer." All I can do is offer my opinion to help, be it semantics to make it easier to read and comprehend the articles for novices, or what I would do to change the perceived flaws and inaccuracies by the general public of this project as a whole. What purpose are we serving on here, anyway, if everyone distrusts us so much that the only people here are, in fact, us? That's all I'm trying to say; I'm doing everything I can do from a keyboard to make a difference on something I believe in and I'm not about to let anyone tell me my voice, in this supposed clearinghouse of ideas, is not applicable. That all being said, I personally feel that if we are to gain any semblance of order on these articles, we split them all as "History of..." - Montreal included - with parent articles that have the current franchise's name or none at all. Do with that what you will.... ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 02:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is scoffing, just trying to focus a discussion that has already gone on way too long. I - and I think we all - are just trying to get this one situation improved. The Montreal situation may very well end up in mediation/dispute resolution. Wouldn't you at least like to bring the compromise here to the table there? Regardless, I firmly believe that this is not the venue to wage war over a completely different article. Wknight94 ^talk 02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I can live with that plan. However, I'm just making it known I have no hidden agendas for the future; it's all in the open with me. I'm tabling the Montreal battle for another day, and coming back to the article at hand. For this article, my choice remains as stated at the top. ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is probably a good idea, because had this compromise not come about, mediation would have happened as I have a proposal for mediation already typed out for the next time someone tried to wage war over it, and was just going to reword it for this case, since for the most part no one could come up with a reasonable reason why it had to be named "History of..." When you could still put the same disclaimer you proposed on the article regardless of the title. However, I as mentioned above have accepted this current compromise as a good first step for now towards eventually getting them to be named the way that conforms to wp:name. I would also note that you mention being consistant as important and that the baseball project has a rule about being consistant, but what was pointed out to you was that the expos page doesn't just belong to the baseball project, it is also part of the canada project which splits all of its sports teams that moves. Why should your wikiproject outrank the consistancy of another wikiproject? No project has first rights to any article. That is the whole point of WP:OWN. Projects are just groups of editors who like to edit certain articles, they have no rights over articles that are different than any other editor has. As such both projects have an equal say in how its handled. -DJSasso (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the collapsing but this is clearly a case of a neighboring war spilling over into here. I'm willing to wager that everyone knows everyone else's opinion regarding the Expos article. If folks want to point out that things here don't change things there, go ahead. But you have to admit that the collapsed portion above is simply sniping at each other. There is plenty of time for that over at the Expos talk page and any mediation pages. If the comment here is not about this article specifically, I ask that you at least keep it short. Wknight94 ^talk 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the History of ... idea. The Giants neeed such sister articles ('History of the SF Giants' & 'History of the NY Giants (National League)'. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scorecard[edit]

It seems like we are coming to an arrangement but I wanted to put together a scorecard to summarize the miles of discussion above. Everyone is free to fix anything below, and of course add anything I missed. Standard disclaimer: this is not a vote and simple counts will not necessarily be used by whoever decides the final consensus. This is merely to make sure everyone above is represented as accurately as possible in one easy-to-read place.

BTW, I changed "National League" to "NL" since it's shorter and there is precedent.

	Split to History of the New York Giants (NL)	Split to History of the San Francisco Giants (New York)	Split to New York Giants (NL)
BRMo	Neutral (support split, oppose name)	Neutral (support split, oppose name)	Support
Djsasso	Support as 2nd choice	Support as 3rd choice	Support as 1st choice
EaglesFanInTampa	Support	Support as last resort	Oppose
Faithlessthewonderboy			Oppose
Gateman1997	Oppose	Oppose	Oppose
GoodDay	Support		Support
Indrian	Support		Oppose
LonelyBeacon	Support (3rd choice)	Support (2nd choice)	Support
Muboshgu	Oppose	Oppose	Oppose
Resolute	Support		Support
Rlendog	Support as 3rd choice	Support as 2nd choice	Support as 1st choice
Spanneraol	Support		Oppose
Wknight94	Support as 3rd choice	Support as 2nd choice	Support as 1st choice

Wknight94 ^talk 04:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeable break[edit]

It looks like no one has touched this in at least 2 weeks, so I'm just curious what we decided to do with this. Are we going to do a possibly-warranted split, or are we just leaving it status quo? ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 16:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like History of the New York Giants (NL) to me. Whoever has time should go ahead IMHO. Wknight94 ^talk 17:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started the page, others should go in and work on it if they so desire.Spanneraol (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question to those who do not support any of the split options[edit]

A question to those who do not support any of the split options that have been discussed. Is the issue:

At the current time there is no need to split, but if the article was expanded significantly a split would be appropriate
A split is appropriate now, but at a point other than the move to San Francisco
A split is appropriate now, but none of the naming choices given are appropriate
A combination of the above, i.e., At the current time there is no need to split but, even though a split would be appropriate if the article was significantly expanded, the split at that point should be at a place other than the move to SF or the new name should be other than what has been discussed
The article should never be split, no matter how long it becomes.

Rlendog (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Records[edit]

It's no problem finding records separated by city. These are from the 2007 edition of the Sporting News record book, the last time it was available. The Elias record book also separates them out. The books also make it clear that the teams moved. Here are a few season-record highlights:

NEW YORK

Runs: 147 - Mike Tiernan, 1889; 139 - Bill Terry, 1930

Home Runs: 51 - Johnny Mize, 1947, and Willie Mays, 1955

Runs Batted In: 151 - Mel Ott, 1929

Batting Average: .401, Bill Terry, 1930

Wins: 37, Christy Mathewson, 1908

Strikeouts: 267, Christy Mathewson, 1903

Earned Run Average: 1.66, Carl Hubbell, 1933

SAN FRANCISCO

Runs: 134 - Bobby Bonds, 1970

Home Runs: 73 - Barry Bonds, 2001

Runs Batted In: 142 - Orlando Cepeda, 1961

Batting Average: .370 - Barry Bonds, 2002

Wins: 26 - Juan Marichal, 1968

Strikeouts: 251 - Jason Schmidt, 2004

Earned Run Average: 1.98 - Bobby Bolin, 1968

The point being that this information can be had. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

shorten main article[edit]

Now that the sub pages are setup, someone should go in and shorten up the main San Francisco Giants page.. it has tons of info on recent seasons that should either go to the history article or the season pages.... I've also created the History of the Los Angeles Dodgers and History of the Brooklyn Dodgers pages... neither existed before.. Will work more on rewriting those pages when I get the chance... the LA Dodgers page is also a mess... not sure how to summarize that one now that the history pages are created.. when I get more time I might take a crack at it. unless someone else wants to do it first. Spanneraol (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Maybe if I get time, I can hack at San Francisco Giants a bit in the next couple days. Wknight94 ^talk 20:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already gotten both the NYG and BD links redirecting to the "History of..." pages, as we agreed, as well as any other historical names (Brooklyn Superbas, New York Gothams, etc.) going to the former city links, too. I don't know enough about the intricacies of each of those teams to do a proper hack-saw job to the parent articles, though, but I'm willing to do what I can! ~~Eagles~~Phillies Fan In Tampa 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Neukom[edit]

Interesting to see that Bill Neukom, Chairman Emeritus, isn't mentioned anywhere here or the main team article. Erased from history! 69.181.245.156 (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Baer and Neukom are both at least listed in the main team article's infobox and in the owners navbox. It's Charles Bartlett Johnson who isn't mentioned anywhere here or on the team page. 76.102.89.234 (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the San Francisco Giants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629054908/http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-worldseries&print=1 to https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-worldseries&print=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the San Francisco Giants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]